I think we should not attempt to compare the Quaran with the Bible.
It is exactly for the reason of reliability through diversified copying of the original autograph that we can rely on the bible but not the quaran.
Lets also not forget…the quaran was written 600 years after Christ…it is not ancient by bible standards.
Also, how many inspired writers authored the quaran? The answer is 1 person wrote it supposedly under the direction of the Angel Gabriel, so it wasnt even God directly who is claimed to have inspired it!
If one is going to agree with the notion God inspired the authorship of the quaran, one may as well canonize the book of mormon. Would you agree that the book of morman is inspired?
That is about salvation and not the forgiveness of sins.
God wants willing followers. Any notion of Salvation or punishment is coercion.
The forgiveness of sin is not part of commmitting to God. Commitment is our response to it. It may rely on forgivenss but Forgiveness does not rely on it. Forgiveness is there regardless of whether we appreciate it, idnetify it or accept it.
Merely assuming that one’s own view is right and others are wrong is often arrogant (though it could merely be ignorant). And we should always be seeking corrections to our understanding, even if we have good evidence that our understanding is better than certain alternatives.
But reality tells us that some ideas are right and some are wrong. The laws of nature work whether we accept them or not. Saying that 1+1=2 and other views are wrong is not inherently arrogant.
We should not force our children to make all the mistakes over again for themselves - they should have the opportunity to learn from what we and others have experienced. Learning from experience and making some mistakes for themselves can be very valuable learning, but not if it’s a mistake that they are unlikely to survive. We should teach them to think for themselves and assess claims. But not teaching them what we have become convinced is true and important is not being kind to them. Some truths are likely to lead to earlier death, particularly where the government does not favor truthfulness, but usually a more accurate understanding promotes better well-being (at least if that accurate understanding is applied).
The idea that everybody should just choose for themselves what they want to believe does not match well with observed reality. Christianity and Islam cannot both be correct, for example. Of course, there are a number of points of agreement between them, which could be correct or not, and both could be wrong in different ways about something, in addition to the issue of imperfections in how well individual followers understand what the correct teachings are. Also, it’s necessary to distinguish between practical logistics in a diverse society versus discussing what is true. Should we seek to get along with people who disagree? Is it important to correct what is wrong? These are different questions, both important. But saying that all views are equally good on a particular topic is imposing the assumption that this an issue where there is no one truth and the different positions do not really matter. It is not a neutral position.
That i do not agree with.
How can you claim such a thing when first hand witnesses tell us they saw a man cast a demon out of another, into a herd of pigs, who then rush down an embankment and drown themselves in the sea.
You believe that but wont believe another who states, “I am” (the same I Am who sent Moses to pharoah) and that Noah was saved from a global flood.
The same creator tells us that all creation was corrupted by sin (that includes things we see in geology.
You likely assume the laws of nature to hold as you go about the routine of your life. Your practical skills for work and recreation rely on expert understanding of applicable natural law. There is a right way and a wrong way.
The reality is that we are all individuals, who genreally do therir best but occasionally make istakes… Yes, there are some who are genuinly evil, but there are more that are generally good.
God forgives the mistakes. You would codemn them. That is not a Christian attitude.
Yoo would also try and brow beat or frighten people to follow God “Or else!” And that is not what God wants either.
Concentrating on redemption and Heaven is selfish and self interest. neither of which are Christian traits… We are Crustians because of the intrinsic right, not to save us from Hell.
Given that we do not have much data on the “natural” response of pigs to demons (no, buying deviled ham at the grocery doesn’t help), that particular incident doesn’t tell us anything about natural laws except perhaps that there are topics they don’t cover. Of course, there are miracles that do not fit with our knowledge of natural laws, but the whole point is that the incident does not fit the normal pattern. We should not jump off the temple. Just because I believe that God does work miracles does not mean I should believe it when I read in Viz about a fish with a human face being a world-class footballer. I believe in biblical miracles because I find the Bible to be reliable. I am rather more hesitant about Strobel’s reports of miracles because I have found him to be unreliable. I don’t doubt that God does work miracles today, but I doubt Strobel’s claims to have adequately and impartially investigated evidence.
All creation groans because of sin. But the Bible tells us that the heavens declare His handiwork. If the physical creation does glorify God, then it is not conveying a misleading picture. And it’s not as if rocks have much capacity to do wrong. Rather, we are out of harmony with all of creation because of our sin. Besides, if you claim that the evidence from geology is untrustworthy, you’re admitting that all the young-earth arguments that claim to be geological are untrue.
Of course, our interpretations of the geological evidence are unreliable in detail - we are finite, fallible, and fallen. But Genesis 1 tells us that we have duties as stewards of creation, which we cannot fulfill unless we do accurately understand how it works. Our understanding is imperfect but not imaginary. Geology works - it can predict where to find natural resources, it can predict the pattern of ages for the old volcanoes dotted along the east side of Australia, etc.
Ironically I used to be a big fan of Strobel’s The Case for Christ, but lost interest in him over the years. I wouldn’t have given The Case for Miracles a passing thought, if I hadn’t come to it via Craig Keener’s work, who Strobel features. I still haven’t read The Case for Miracles, but I wouldn’t be opposed to it. Keener however, is fantastic. I discovered him by way of his lectures on Revelation. He is an awe inspiring lecturer and scholar. His book Miracles Today was equally impressive for its even handed tone and openness about when miracles don’t happen.
Unless otherwise specified, baptism is a ceremony with water – that’s the meaning of the word.
What happens in baptism is clearly described by Paul in Romans 6 and by Peter on Pentecost.
That’s an easy one: because Zeus is clearly a part of what has been created, so he has no higher standing than I do.
“Original autograph” means the very document, the actual papyrus, that the actual writer put the words on. We have a 98%+ certainty of what was on that papyrus in the NT, but we do not have the original.
In modern terms, the original autograph would be the text a writer hands to a publisher; what we have are third, fourth, and later editions at best.
That’s not what the Gospels are, except perhaps Luke.
I’ll compare them: the Quran is at least 20% plagiarized, the Bible is not. The Quran portrays a vengeful and murderous deity with a brigand, murderer, pedophile as a spokesman, the Bible portrays love with Love as its spokesman.
‘Luke’ says he’s writing down what was handed down from the original eyewitnesses. That’s hearsay.
The last two verses of ‘John’ say that he author was copying what was originally written down by some-one else. So that’s also hearsay.
We don’t know who wrote Matthew, but a lot of it is copied from Mark, so at least those sections are hearsay.
The part of Mark that describes post-resurrection events was added later, by an unknown person. That section is almost certainly hearsay, even if the rest isn’t.
All four of the gospels are anonymous; written decades after the events described, none include any details of the author, and their names were likely associated them later. There isn’t a good case for any of the gospels being eye-witness accounts.
I guess you can trash any part of the Bible. That is not the pont. The point is that Scripture is all about faith. Faith in God whom we cannot see and faith in the witnesses who are long gone. At the end of the day we are left with personal opinion and either faith or scepticism.
Romans 6 and Acts 2 tell about the baptism, as do many other texts in the NT scriptures. You can claim that they ‘clearly describe’ what happens in the baptism but for some reason, there are different interpretations about that. Typically, people take some verses or words to support their view but somehow skip what the other words, verses, examples or teachings seem to tell.
To get a more truthful overview of the matter, we should take into account all texts in the biblical scriptures that tell about baptism, including the examples (cases) where people were baptized, and merge this with all the rest of the teaching about salvation and life in and through Christ.
I suspect that even after someone does it, the conclusions may vary depending on our ‘colored spectacles’, what has been earlier fed to us and is our expectation. Therefore, I believe that we also need to pray that the Holy Spirit would lead us to know the truth even in this matter, if we are truly interested about knowing the truth.
Ron,
without the full context of my statement that you have quoted, the true meaning is corrupted and lost.
So, i will answer this by repeating what i wrote that you did not quote…
I wrote…That i do not agree with. (which you quoted)
However you did not quote my reasons for why i said the above…
How can you claim such a thing when first hand witnesses tell us they saw a man cast a demon out of another, into a herd of pigs, who then rush down an embankment and drown themselves in the sea.
You believe that but wont believe another who states, “I am” (the same I Am who sent Moses to pharoah) and that Noah was saved from a global flood.
The same creator tells us that all creation was corrupted by sin (that includes things we see in geology.
I think i diverge from the error of naturalisms influence on Christianity in the above area.
My belief is that when the bible tells us All Creation Groans Under Sin (Romans 8), it includes
geology, biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy…everything has been tainted. Nothing works as it was intended to when God created this earth in Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
Where is that in the text? Answer: it isn’t. That’s another assertion from Augustine that rests on his erroneous idea of original sin.
Paul says the creation groans in “pains of childbirth”. In context that links with “the revealing of the sons of God”, which matches the idea of birth. At present the creation is subject to futility, meaning it cannot fulfill its intended purpose, and we know that its intended purpose involved humans caring for it, so until humans are fully restored to that position of stewardship Creation is effectively keeping time, marching in place going nowhere because God’s appointed representatives aren’t able to guide it. The corruption it is in bondage to is us humans, which we know because the result of it being set free is to “obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God”.
So the idea that “geology, biology, physics, chemistry, astronomy…[have] been tainted” is erroneous. That is reinforced by the fact that we are told the entire Creation praises God and shows His handiwork – which wouldn’t be true if “nothing works as it was intended to”.