What makes a book the True Word of God?

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

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.

let us take a look at your earlier statement, shall we?
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.

this statement you just made regarding the concept of the trinity not arising during the times of abraham and moses renders the message carried in the new testament to be false and something that either originated from sources #2 or #3 mentioned in your earlier post.

regardless of whether or not the “trinitirian nature of God” existed back then or not, it is not a concept taught - or at the very least - understood by the earlier prophets and messengers. this very fact means that the concept of the trinity was something introduced sometime later on. this, my friend, is an inconsistency and a change in the message.

 

[George_Waters]

So, the prophets can not elaborate on the teachings of earlier prophets with events that are now relevant to the people being prophesied to? They had to deliver the message in it’s entirety even when the people could not understand the message as certain events central to the complete message had not yet occurred? (If this is the case why do you ever need more than one prophet?)

Did Abraham or Moses deliver the exact same message as Mohammed or did they tell them that a future prophet would come to give the people the complete message?

If a young child asks why the sun rises in the East and sets in the West do you explain every relevant concept or do you abbreviate your message to be factual, but in keeping with the mental ability and understanding of the child?

George

 

[r.gonzales]

George Waters:

So, the prophets can not elaborate on the teachings of earlier prophets with events that are now relevant to the people being prophesied to? They had to deliver the message in it’s entirety even when the people could not understand the message as certain events central to the complete message had not yet occurred?

with regards to your first question, all prophets and messengers sent by Allah to mankind carried the same essential message with them concerning Allah and His nature: there is no god worthy of worship except Him, so do not associate anything in worship with Him. that He is one in His nature and in His essence. so, from this aspect, no, the prophets and messengers cannot elaborate and bring new concepts about Allah that weren’t taught by other prophets and messengers.

regarding your second question, according to the statement i keep quoting from reuben, yes.

 

[George_Waters]

All prophets carried the same **essential ** message that there is only one God. The essential part being there is only one God. I agree there is only one God.

rgonzales said; “…from this aspect, no, the prophets and messengers cannot elaborate and bring new concepts about Allah that weren’t taught by other prophets and messengers.” So, I ask again if the prophets had to deliver the message in its entirety why did we need another prophet?

Did Mohammad add anything that was not previously taught by an earlier prophet?

I think it is more like the example of explaining a very complicated concept to a child I gave in my previous post. Abraham and Mosses beat it into our thick skulls that there is only God, and then when God deemed us ready he revealed to us the progression of complexity that is His essence.

George

 

[Reuben_J]

r.gonzales:

let us take a look at your earlier statement, shall we?

this statement you just made regarding the concept of the trinity not arising during the times of abraham and moses renders the message carried in the new testament to be false and something that either originated from sources #2 or #3 mentioned in your earlier post.

regardless of whether or not the “trinitirian nature of God” existed back then or not, it is not a concept taught - or at the very least - understood by the earlier prophets and messengers. this very fact means that the concept of the trinity was something introduced sometime later on. this, my friend, is an inconsistency and a change in the message.

I don’t see the problem.

You seem not to understand my explanation that humankind experienced God continously (dynamic) throughout the centuries. The events developed from one experience to another.

eg how do you undertsand God covenant with Israel if you do not appreciate the deliverence from Eygpt?

How do you understand Jesus if you do not take into account what happened before that?

Remember, in the beginning there is no necessity for Jesus to come in human flesh at all - if Adam had not sin.

You use some human-made terminology like ‘raw monotheism’. This is for the academics and to me it is not relevant at all here.

We believe in one God, period. Muslims refuse to understand the concept of trinity even if it is for academic purpose. Why? I offer an opinion - because Quran says or rather implies that trinity is God made up of the father, son and mother. And Allah doesn’t has a son. Allah does not beget a son. … Is that what trinity meant? definitely no. Then how the Quran can be so wrong in this?

I offer an opinion - in human term, Muhammad knowledge of Christian belief can be greatly influenced by Waraqa bin Neufal, Khadija’s first cousin. He was one of the most important religous leaders in Mecca because he was the pastor of the largest church. However, this form of Christianity was very different from the type described in the New Testament. The two biggest branches were the Ebionites and the Nestorians. Both of these groups denied that Jesus was the son of God or divine.

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

Quran says or rather implies that trinity is God made up of the father, son and mother.

no it doesn’t. this is just the misunderstanding of orientalists and christian missionaries looking for fault in places where it doesn’t exist.

as for your opinions, none of them really hold any water. the fact of the matter is, according to that statement, your beliefs are false because from the beginning of time until the coming of jesus, mankind had a single understanding of Allah and His nature, then with the coming of jesus, that understanding changed from a simple monotheistic understanding to a complex, non-rational and illogical trinitarian “monotheistic” understanding.

as for your conjecture regarding khadeejah’s cousin waraqah, prophet muhammad’s meeting with him with very brief (and is recorded in the hadeeths describing that meeting) and there was no way for prophet muhammad to learn as much about christianity from him as you suggest. i suggest you read the following: islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBwaraqa.html

as for gregory’s question regarding the need for other prophets, every nation was sent a prophet to convey Allah’s message - and in the case of the children of israel, they were sent tons. and they accepted some while disbelieving in others - heck, they even killed some of them. jesus was the last prophet sent to the children of israel. prophet muhammad was the last prophet sent to the arabs and the rest of mankind.

 

[Reuben_J]

r.gonzales:

as for your conjecture regarding khadeejah’s cousin waraqah, prophet muhammad’s meeting with him with very brief (and is recorded in the hadeeths describing that meeting) and there was no way for prophet muhammad to learn as much about christianity from him as you suggest. i suggest you read the following: islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBwaraqa.html

it is no conjecture. You may want to dig more into this … Those meeting were definitely not brief. I don’t want to be offensive if this is something new to you, but I really suggest you find out more …

Picture this … if Waraqa is part of the family how can any meeting and life spent together be brief?

Waraqa also was Muahammad mentor in his early days. The fact that Muhammad was decsribed to have met Waraqa one time while circling the black stone at the centre of Al-Ka’aba, doesn’t mean that they do not meet some places else.

I leave this topic as it is for the time being. Maybe it is better to think about it first before making hasty comment.

GBU

 

[George_Waters]

r.gonzales,

You have yet to state your evidence that the essential message that there is only one God changed. Sure, human understanding may have advanced, but as has been repeatedly pointed out additional explanation of a concept does not change the basics of the concept.

As far as being “non-rational and illogical” that is your opinion and does not provide proof of, or add credence to, your arguments. Without getting into a senseless debate over who is right based on numbers (which is illogical), millions of people for centuries have found the concept of the Trinity rational and logical.

I appreciate you answering some of my questions (though I notice simple, straight forward questions are typically ignored or “answered” with a preponderance of quotes), but am still waiting to hear if Mohammed added anything not taught by previous prophets. If he did than I will argue that according to your statements your beliefs are false. (Not that I really believe Islam is categorically false as you do with Christian belief, but simply lacks understanding.)

I have to agree with ReubenJ, it seems, based on your own statements on this and other threads, that you simply refuse to believe Christians believe in only one God.

George

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

it is no conjecture. You may want to dig more into this … Those meeting were definitely not brief. I don’t want to be offensive if this is something new to you, but I really suggest you find out more …

Picture this … if Waraqa is part of the family how can any meeting and life spent together be brief?

Waraqa also was Muahammad mentor in his early days. The fact that Muhammad was decsribed to have met Waraqa one time while circling the black stone at the centre of Al-Ka’aba, doesn’t mean that they do not meet some places else.

I leave this topic as it is for the time being. Maybe it is better to think about it first before making hasty comment.

GBU

i’d like to see your evidence for these claims… ante up.

 

[Reuben_J]

r.gonzales:

i’d like to see your evidence for these claims… ante up.

What evidence? I would like to see evidence too that Waraqa only met Muhammad once and only a brief spell.

During Muhammad earlier revelations in Mecca, it was his wife Khadija and her cousin Waraqa, who encouraged him that those revelations were from Allah and that they were His true word. Muhammad was troubled by all those revelations initially, but these two did play a great deal in supporting him.

You need to read between the lines. Historians do this and that’s why history is so rich. I’m not saying this as evidence. But if you are family, as cousins, in ancient tribal Arab society, it will be foolhardy to conclude they just met only for Muhammad to pass certain info at the Al-Ka’ba. It’s so intriguing to make it very real.

Well, I don’t say you have to agree here. Actually I can give you more literature on this, but, please don’t just brush this off hand. Get a second opinion. Discuss with your professors if you’re still studying.

 

[puzzleannie]

nothing makes a book the true word of God. Jesus Christ is the True Word of God. If a book were to record the revelation of God throughout history about the nature, salvific work and reason for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to earth and were to further record the words and actions of Jesus and the testimony of the witnesses about Jesus, and if this book were compiled by those chosen by God, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then this book would contain the true word of God. This book would transmit in a form humans could understand in all ages the true word of God.

 

[Reuben_J]

puzzleannie:

nothing makes a book the true word of God. Jesus Christ is the True Word of God. If a book were to record the revelation of God throughout history about the nature, salvific work and reason for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to earth and were to further record the words and actions of Jesus and the testimony of the witnesses about Jesus, and if this book were compiled by those chosen by God, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then this book would contain the true word of God. This book would transmit in a form humans could understand in all ages the true word of God.

Sure, for a Christian.

Try saying that to a Muslim.

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

What evidence?

so, basically, all of what you’ve mentioned is not fact at all, but rather, speculation and conjecture.

 

[mattrue]

I Hope this is not off subject but as a Catholic we not only believe in the Bible but the actual presence of Christ in our lives. So being a Catholic is not only about reading Scripture but also about living as Christ has lived. Father Corapi has a terrific series about the Catechism of the Cathilic Church, all his talks are great. check him out at FatherCorapi.com or relavantradio.com.

 

[Reuben_J]

r.gonzales:

so, basically, all of what you’ve mentioned is not fact at all, but rather, speculation and conjecture.

What about what you say all along here? Where is the evidence?

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

What about what you say all along here? Where is the evidence?

the burden of proof is upon the claimant. you’re the one claiming that prophet muhammad gained knowledge of christianity from waraqah bin nawfal - claims that are in reality based on pure speculation and conjecture.

all the authentic accounts prophet muhammad’s life and the hadeeths describing prophet muhammad’s encounter with waraqah bin nawfal indicate contrarty to your assumptions and claims.

as muhammad mohar ali writes in his book, sirat al-nabi and the orientalists:

As regards the instance of Waraqah ibn Nawfal, great emphasis as indeed been placed on it by the orientalists. There is no doubt that Khadijah (r.a.) took the Prophet, shortly after his receipt of the first revelation, to Waraqah for consulation. This fact, as already pointed out, shows on the one hand that the Prophet did not entertain any intention or ambition to play the role of a prophet. On the other hand it shows that on his part Waraqah also considered him a sincere and unpretentious person. Had the Prophet previously received instruction in Christianity from Waraqah he would have formed a very different opinion about the former. In fact, except for this meeting, there is no indication in the sources of the Prophet’s having previously consulted Waraqah on any subject, though under the circumstances it is reasonable to assume that the two knew each other from close quarters. The same reason which has been indicated above in connection with the Prophet’s journey to Syria and his alleged acquisition of Christian knowledge in the course of that journey may be adduced the more strongly in the present case. Had the Prophet been in the habit of receiving instruction in Christianity from Waraqah, that would have formed a very strong point in the Quraysh leaders’ attack on and criticism of the Prophet.

source: “sirat al-nabi and the orientalists with special reference to the writings of william muir, d.s. margolouth and w. montgomery watt” by muhammad mohar ali.

 

[Reuben_J]

Ali’s writing miss the point by a few shots. I mentioned that Khadija and Waraqa advised Muahammad that the revelation was from God.

Muhammad didn’t have to take any formal Christian instruction from waraqah. Refences to Christianity in the Quran is superficial and errorenous and if this is anything to go by, Muhammad’s knowledge about Christianity was about the same. Not definitely the Christianity that was in existence in Rome or Jerusalem then.

Did the writer mentioned about Khadija relationship with Waraqa?

What is your respond if I say this (just for the sake of arguement): Muhammad was never a Muslim per se. The wife (and relative) were heretical Christians from whom Muhammad derived his spurting Christian knowledge.

Did you notice that Muhammad’s attitude toward the Christians made a tremendous turn-around after Medina? And I guess you know why.