What makes a book the True Word of God?

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

Theres a thread Reubin began about whether the Quran is the word of a True God (im assuming he meant if the Quran is the true word of God) and the responses just seem to be saying ‘no its not cause it doesnt agree with the bible teachings’. And i guess if a Muslim started a thread about the bible, many muslims would answer ‘no its not cause the Quran says otherwise’.

I think a better question would be to ask what makes a book the True Word of God? If we can answer this question, we can judge on whether the Quran or the bible is the word of God.

 

[Darrel]

My answer to this is a simple one. I think the only evidence would be if the words are indicative of Gods nature. God is advanced beyond man I think we all agree on that. Christ existed at a time of brutality by both Roman and Jew alike.

His teachings are the exact opposite of men and the world. When the Pharisees brought the women guilty of adultery to Christ to be stoned he did not allow it. He told the truth (that we are all sinners) guilty of crimes. When examining the validity of scripture it comes down to the fruit of the tree. Which tree produces better fruit, Christianity or Islam? Would the God of all creation have the nature of tyrannical man or a loving parent? Just examine the teachings of Christ in the bible in comparison to the teachings of Muhammad and it is clear which resembles divine nature.

Like Jesus said, the tree is known by its fruit.

-D

 

[r.gonzales]

Darrel:

Just examine the teachings of Christ in the bible in comparison to the teachings of Muhammad and it is clear which resembles divine nature.

this is precisely why i am no longer a christian and have accepted islam.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hashi Al-Eritre:

I think a better question would be to ask what makes a book the True Word of God? If we can answer this question, we can judge on whether the Quran or the bible is the word of God.

I believe a message from religous scripture can be (1)from God or (2)from the evil one or just (3)from human own thought. Thus my question in the said thread - is it from true God and not from the othe two (2) or (3)?

My 2 cents on the true word of God:-
Its message must be consistent with the known nature of God. It never changes. It will not water down to accomodate human situation to suit its advantage.

 

[George_Waters]

Back in the 80’s I seriously researched Islam and found quite the opposite of r.gonzales’ statement to be true.

I agree with Ruben J; “Its message must be consistent with the known nature of God. It never changes. It will not water down to accommodate human situation to suit its advantage.”

George

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

Its message must be consistent with the known nature of God. It never changes.

this is a statement i can agree with. and some of the things mentioned by some of the catholic members of this board in the “trinity - monotheistic or tritheistic” thread (as well as others) indicate that the doctrine of the trinity is not consistent with the known nature of Allah as found in the teachings of the prophets who came prior to the new testament.

 

[Reuben_J]

r.gonzales:

this is a statement i can agree with. and some of the things mentioned by some of the catholic members of this board in the “trinity - monotheistic or tritheistic” thread (as well as others) indicate that the doctrine of the trinity is not consistent with the known nature of Allah as found in the teachings of the prophets who came prior to the new testament.

Not true. Jesus (the Son) or the second person of the trinity was being promised by God and prophecised by the ancient prophets. The purpose? for the salvation of mankind after the fall of Adam.

It is consistent, I’m afraid.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 .

Immanuel means ‘God with us’. Jesus was with us. But He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

Reuben J:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 .

Immanuel means ‘God with us’. Jesus was with us. But He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Since the old testament is originally in hebrew, i think its important we have a look at how the jews translate and understand this verse. home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah7.html

Moreover, if one looks at the verses before and after 7:14, one gets a totally different picture as to the context of the verse. refer to the link above, or biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%207:1-20;&version=31; to read for yourself. Looking at the verse among the other verses, its clear it isnt talking about Jesus the Messiah at all.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hashi Al-Eritre:

Since the old testament is originally in hebrew, i think its important we have a look at how the jews translate and understand this verse. home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah7.html

Moreover, if one looks at the verses before and after 7:14, one gets a totally different picture as to the context of the verse. refer to the link above, or biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%207:1-20;&version=31; to read for yourself. Looking at the verse among the other verses, its clear it isnt talking about Jesus the Messiah at all.

A more appropriate source of looking for interpretation of biblical verses would be: what does the church say? I’m not going more into that just to save time.

BTW Isa 7:14 is just one examples that the coming of Jesus is being foretold. There are many more. In fact the whole Bible seems to point just to this fact. I will not flood my response with those biblical verses as this has been done many times here.

If the Bible is to be our source of reference, then the foretelling of the coming of Jesus should be no contest at all.

But what is the gist of this thread anyway? I thought you say Biblical references are not allowed.

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

Reuben J:

But what is the gist of this thread anyway? I thought you say Biblical references are not allowed.

You were the first to mention a biblical reference, thats why i felt the need to reply.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hashi Al-Eritre:

You were the first to mention a biblical reference, thats why i felt the need to reply.

OK fine. I think I was digressing.

But what’s the gist?

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

Not true. Jesus (the Son) or the second person of the trinity was being promised by God and prophecised by the ancient prophets.

the prophecies of the coming of the annointed prophet are one thing, the doctrine that that person is Allah in the flesh is another… and one does not necessitate the other.

and yes it is true, and that’s just judging by some of the statements made by christians on this very forum… statements that indicate:

• abraham, moses and the other prophets before jesus did not believe in the trinity.
• the monotheism brought by these earlier prophets was “raw monotheism” and not the “developed trinitarian mono(poly)theism” which shows Allah’s true nature.
• the old testament Allah is shown to be ruthless ordering death to many, whereas the new testament Allah is peaceful and loving, wishing for the salvation of all of mankind through the sacrifice of His only begotten son, Himself.

 

[Hashi_Al-Eritre]

i have alot to say in addressing the subject of the thread, i plan to soon, just bare with me as the weekend is now in and i wanna wait till monday to make the time to write out my post.

Im not really saying biblical references arent allowed period, but rather not to base your entire arguement on biblical or quranic references alone, instead relying more on intellectual means of proving a book is the true word of God.

 

[Reuben_J]

r.gonzales:

the prophecies of the coming of the annointed prophet are one thing, the doctrine that that person is Allah in the flesh is another… and one does not necessitate the other.

and yes it is true, and that’s just judging by some of the statements made by christians on this very forum… statements that indicate:

• abraham, moses and the other prophets before jesus did not believe in the trinity.

Nowhere it says they did not believe in the trinity.

r.gonzales:

• the monotheism brought by these earlier prophets was “raw monotheism” and not the “developed trinitarian mono(poly)theism” which shows Allah’s true nature.

Does not make sense.
God historical experiences with man was dynamic and it did not stop with the ancient prophets. God nature is trinitirian (this is being covered extensively in the other thread) and the revelation is not complete without this understanding.

r.gonzales:

• the old testament Allah is shown to be ruthless ordering death to many, whereas the new testament Allah is peaceful and loving, wishing for the salvation of all of mankind through the sacrifice of His only begotten son, Himself.

All the more humans need a saviour.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hashi Al-Eritre:

i have alot to say in addressing the subject of the thread, i plan to soon, just bare with me as the weekend is now in and i wanna wait till monday to make the time to write out my post.

Im not really saying biblical references arent allowed period, but rather not to base your entire arguement on biblical or quranic references alone, instead relying more on intellectual means of proving a book is the true word of God.

Thanks.

GTG for now. See ya.

GBU

 

[Darrel]

Hashi Al-Eritre:

Since the old testament is originally in hebrew, i think its important we have a look at how the jews translate and understand this verse. home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah7.html

Moreover, if one looks at the verses before and after 7:14, one gets a totally different picture as to the context of the verse. refer to the link above, or biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%207:1-20;&version=31; to read for yourself. Looking at the verse among the other verses, its clear it isnt talking about Jesus the Messiah at all.

I thought this stuff was all re-written with lies in Islam’s eyes? Why do you reference it now as if it has validity? Or do you feel the Hebrew text you posted is a valid piece of scripture? I was under the impression that both the Bible and the Jewish OT had both been hacked in the eyes of Islam. Is this correct?

…

**Silent to accusations: *Isaiah 53:7… Matthew 26:62-63, Mark.15:4-5. - Isa.53:7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Ps.38:13-14)
*- Mt 26:62-63 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God!” **

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. *(Mt 27:12-14, Mk.15:4-5) *

-D

 

[jcaz]

REUBEN J:

Its message must be consistent with the known nature of God. It never changes. It will not water down to accomodate human situation to suit its advantage

r.gonzales:

• abraham, moses and the other prophets before jesus did not believe in the trinity.
• the monotheism brought by these earlier prophets was “raw monotheism” and not the “developed trinitarian mono(poly)theism” which shows Allah’s true nature.
• the old testament Allah is shown to be ruthless ordering death to many, whereas the new testament Allah is peaceful and loving, wishing for the salvation of all of mankind through the sacrifice of His only begotten son, Himself.

Good answer.

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

Nowhere it says they did not believe in the trinity.

as i mentioned in my post, those points i mentioned were all derived from statements that christians on this site have made (whether catholic or not).

here are some of them:
Reformed Rob:

I suppose that if we were to go back in time, and sit down and chat with Abraham or Moses, maybe they would not like our “A.D. era” Trinitarian understanding of God. And, if that were the case, I suppose that would be ok. God had not revealed that to them.

(reformed rob said): I suppose that if we were to go back in time, and sit down and chat with Abraham or Moses, maybe they would not like our “A.D. era” Trinitarian understanding of God. And, if that were the case, I suppose that would be ok. God had not revealed that to them.
With the coming of Christ, the writing of the books of the New Testament, and the Apostle’s (and Christ’s Himself’s) interpretation of the Old Testament, there was a profound enhancement of just “Who” God is and our knowledge of Him.

That is always how I looked at it.

Ghosty:

Remember, Jews don’t believe in the Trinity either, but to say that they don’t believe in the God of Christianity is downright blasphemy. Moses didn’t believe in the Trinity, after all.

memnoch_lover:

Jesus reveals God in an unheard of sense. Jesus reveals Trinity that One God is Father Son and Holy Spirit.

Reformed Rob:

We believe that one of God’s attributes is perfect wisdom. Therefore we believe that God is wise for taking this gradual approach. Part of the wisdom in the method is perhaps that… you have the Israelites surrounded by truly polytheistic cultures, and the monotheistic nature of God’s revelation was quite a contrast. There was no doubt at all, it was “raw monotheism” if you will, no “Trinity” to work through. Of course, there are verses as early as the book of Genesis, from which we get awesome texts to support the Trinity, but for those people, they needed to understand that there is ONE God. And that’s what we believe. But we KNOW more. At least we should… but that’s another story. We know more, but it’s the same God that we know more about.

Maranatha:

Christians don’t believe the Trinity is a completely new way of looking at God. We believe in a single God. Yes the Trinity is not a simple explanation of His existence but simple does not mean it’s right. A simple monotheistic deity with out Trinitarian aspects is a less perfect god, IMHO.

there were also a number of statements from which my third point was taken from that were in a thread that has conveniently been deleted (at least apparently) about terrorism in the bible.

 

[George_Waters]

r.gonzales,

Just because some Christians say or believe a particular thing does not necessarily mean it is, or is not, a fact. As you have rightly pointed out before some Muslims say and do things contrary to the Quran. Should we discount it in it’s entirety due to that?

George

 

[Reuben_J]

r.gonzales:

as i mentioned in my post, those points i mentioned were all derived from statements that christians on this site have made (whether catholic or not).

there were also a number of statements from which my third point was taken from that were in a thread that has conveniently been deleted (at least apparently) about terrorism in the bible.

IMHO the concept of the trinity does not arise in Abraham or Moses time, as the second person (Jesus Christ) had not arrived then. How would they then speak tangibly of the trinity without the physical presence of Jesus been experienced.

But it does not mean the trinitirian nature of God did not exist then. God (the Father) was of course readily experienced and so the Spirit of God. The second person was of course commonly undertsood as the Word the existed before the foundation of the world.

More importantly however one must appreciate that God was experienced dynamically by human throughout the ages until the coming of the Son.

By not taking this into consideration, one would not able to explain why certain events happened the way they did.

Some major happenings include the creation, followed by the fall.
God covenant with Abraham.
God covenant with Moses. How it was broken.
The Judges and Kings. How they failed God.
The prophecies of the prophets and God promises of salvation.
Culminating in the coming of Jesus.

Thus they were continous events. It is throughout the history of mankind experience with God that God nature as trinitirian is understood and made tangible.