> Christianity - What do you need to know?

[Al Habeshi]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

as-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah.

I would like someone to explain how can those two verses complement each other rather than contradicting each other.

the first verse is by Paul claiming that he is the builder and founder, the next verse to it is telling the exact opposite thing that Jesus Peace be upon him is the founder

“According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the FOUNDATION, and another builds on it" (1 Corinthians 3:10)

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11)

Well let me share a fundamental viewpoint I use personally. If you find what appears to be a contradiction in the speech of one person, i.e. within the same book or speech, then it is more likely that I do not understand it than it being a contradiction. Unless it is possible that there is more than one author of the same book or that the person generally contradicts himself.

This means for example that if I were analyzing a book from the Bible, like Gospel of Mark, and something seems contradictory with itself, (i.e. one passage in mark with another passage in mark) I would first see if there is more than one author to the Gospel, sometimes we can’t know, then I would try reconcile it even if it seemed improbable if I was certain that there was one author who was reliable and accurate.

I don’t know if that makes sense.

Anyhow, coming to the particular case, if you read this part of Paul’s letter you find that people were bickering about stuff, and paul indicates that whatever us humans do it is not about us but God working through us, like he states (from verse 4-11);

For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believerd, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.

I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Br.al-Habeshi

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------

Originally Posted by sunnikid

asallamalikum

brother habish i had a question regarding christianity and there god ie. jesus,father,holy ghost. do they change there mind?? i get the answer "NO" they say all of them have same purrpose and it will never change.

1. From my understanding the old testoment is moses words ! but the message of god. so it must mean they should follow it.

2. jesus says to obey moses in one of his many commandments.

3. moses said to us to not eat pork ie. in bible i think it is leviticus chapter 8 verse 11.

4. Jesus confirmed his idea or law.

5. But when i ask christians why do you eat pork they tell me jesus says you can eat anything ? and they bring some verses.

6. i agree with them but does that make there god change there mind?

Can you elaborate on this .

PS:and alchohal.

Wsallam

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

Wa Alaykum Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh.

It would not neccesarily mean that God changed His mind, it could be that God abrogated the rule and knew He was going to abrogate it.

But they need to show that. That is the crucial thing.

Like with this pork thing it does not make sense when you look at it in the context of all the Bible.

First there is the prohibition in the old testament.

Second there is the supposed saying of Jesus that he made food clean with, according to one authro of the Gospel.

Third there is evidence that the disciples were talking about whether there is clean and unclean food, and debated this matter in another book in the NT.


So the question arises, as many bros pointed out to me, that if Jesus did say all food are clean, then why would the disciples still be discussing that after Jesus supposedly said it, as reported in another book in the BIble?

This is the point I find interesting.

Br.al-Habeshi

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

If people can "still" commit sins (like murdering....etc) and thereby enter hell because of that, then isn't that mean that Jesus sacrifice "that they believe in" went to vain?

One answer you may get to this is that Christians who do not produce a change in their actions area not believers, truly, in Jesus. The faith which they have should change their evil desires so that they become nothing but good doing people, i.e. they have no desire for bad.

From what is obvious though is that Christians are not like that, they still sin, they still hate, they still cheat, they still lie, they still do things which they may see as wrong, etc.

Another point you may get is that the price Jesus paid was to cover theses sins, so the sacrifice is not in vain but will still help those who commit sins but believe in Jesus, so that they will not be accountable for their sins. So it means that their sins will be paid by Jesus, so the thing is not in vain.

Br.al-Habeshi

[Al Habeshi]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

as-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah.

Firslty I want to know according to Christianity, when did people recognize Jesus as "lord"

I have been told about many views:

some said that its at age of 8 by Simeon, who saw Jesus when he was brought to the Temple at the age of 8 days to be circumcised and was told by the holy spirit that he is the lord christ ((Luke2:25-32))


some others said that its at age of 12, when he had an unusual understanding of spiritual matters (Luke 2:41-51)


some other group said that its when he was at his 30th birthday at the time the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost. (Acts:Ch. 2)

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

As-Salaamu ‘Alaykum.

First we would need to understand what you mean by Lord, in order to know when people first started accepting him as this.

The meaning of the word Lord, something like Kurios (with endings differing), is not one. Rather it can mean different things depending on the person’s background and usage. Following are somethings you may want to ponder over.

Context Changes Meaning

I don’t know if I have written this here before, but words are merely symbols by which we communicate a meaning. We hope that the person whom we convey these words to interprets the words in the same way we have in order that they may understand the meaning we are trying to convey.
What is obvious is that even the same word can have a totally different interpretation depending on the context. This happens between people of same cultural backgrounds and who speak the same language, let alone people from different cultures and speaking differing languages.

Translating the Lord’s Words

What we have with us are accounts, whether true or false, of supposed incidents which happened in a different language to which they are narrated in, thus it should be clear that from the outset that someone has had to interpret the words used in one language and find an appropriate substitute in the language to which they are translating to. A substitute which will convey the meaning which the translator understood from the words of the language from which he is translating to.

Moreover, prior to this translator it is possible that these stories were narrated and passed on from person to person, moreoften than not when this process occurs people, genrally unless trying not to, often change or rephrase the story in a way through which they relate the story in the way they understood it, adding words which they interpreted as being there or feel belong there anyway.

Sometimes one may add words of respect, whereas the story was merely, ‘’Then Jesus stood and preached the Gospel” one may relate, “Then the Lord stood and preached the Gospel”.

But what does Lord Mean?

This is something which I was building a background to get to this word may mean different things to different cultures. It could have different connotations to different peoples. Sometimes the word is itself translated in different ways by translators, according to context they may translate it as Master and in other places as Lord, because this word can mean both a respected normal human or a supernatural human being.

So when we look at the development of the Christian faith we find that the message moved through places and there was no one body (as far as we know and can logically tell) to regulate the interpretation or application of the words and deeds of Jesus. His message not only moved from generation to generation and eyewitnesses to other than them, but also from culture to culture, language to language, which made changes easier. Thus we find,
Another title which made an easy transition to the Hellenistic world was ‘Lord’ (kurios, in Greek; used in the *LXX with the definite article for “The Lord” or Yahweh) which could mean merely ‘sir’ but to *Gentile converts would imply supernatural status. It was already acquiring this meaning in the third gospel, written for Gentile readers (Luke 22:61). Cf. Phil. 2:10-11.
(Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, p.65)

So we have to realize what we mean by Lord.

Anyhow maybe you can clarify and I will try providing a better answer next time.

Br.al-Habeshi

[Aayah]

I knew that in some age, a lot of Bible copies burnt because they didn't support what the church was teaching at that time like the divinity of Jesus and the trinity dogma. Even though, there are still those group of Christians that called themselves "Unitarians" who only believe in the oneness of God and considering Jesus peace be upon him as a prophet rather than a God.

I would like to know for such denomination, what Bible they have? if all the copies that support their doctrine were burned?
I am reading the Gospel of Barnabas currently and its amazed me by what was written there about the "prophecy" of Jesus unlike the current Gospels. Could it be that those Unitarians are following Barnabas Gospel?

One more thing:

Who are the Nazarene Christians? Are they the true early Christians that Quran has told about?

[Assad]

Nazareth is a city where Jesus PBUH preached. In Bible , Jesus is mentioned as ''a man and a prophet of Nazareth'' (paraphrased).

Yes, these could be the early true Christians because the corruption on Christianity started from the Romans.

Get ready to hear from Christians that Gospel of Barnabas was written by some Pakistanis few years back! They can go to any limits! Once a Christian told me this but due to this super foolish argument that a Pakistani author wrote it, he was forced to change the subject.

I would recommend that you do also research on authenticity of Gospel of Barnabas. So far that is the most authentic Gospel we can get because it didnt came to the hands of Romans.

[amar_labedi]

Assalamalaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu
Mashallah very nice effort by you brother . Though christian Missionaries target almost all religions except including Islam which is one of the toughtest challenge to them.
There shall be a unity among Muslim Debaters discussing almost all the points of the concerned topics.\

[TheBoxer]

sunnikid's questions...

1. The Old Testament is not “Moses' words.” Traditionalist Christians and orthodox Jews believe Moses wrote the Torah. Some Christians and Jews, however, believe it was written by several contributors. The Torah contains the history of mankind, and his relationship with God, especially that of the Israelites. It also contains the set of laws God gave to the Israelites, His chosen people, to be set apart from the Gentiles. Christians obey the commands of Jesus and refrain from sin. The Old Testament is equivalent to the Tanakh. It contains the Torah but also contains the writings such as Lamentations and Judges and the books of prophecy like Malachi.
2. Jesus never said “obey Moses.” He said, “obey me.”
3. God told the Israelites to only eat of the animals He proclaimed to be 'clean.' Pigs, camels, rabbits, etc. did not qualify because they were not cloven-hooved herbivores.
4. Jesus FULFILLED the Law.
5. Jesus said that man is not made unclean by what he eats and then excretes. It passes through the digestive system, not the soul.
6. God never “changed His mind.” He does not abrogate. He consummates. Jesus fulfilled and brought to completion the Mosaic Law. Jews no longer had to be separated from Gentiles.

Regarding the Gospel of Barnabas...

The Gospel of Barnabas has scant manuscript evidence. We have a late 18th century Italian text supposedly based on a 16th century Spanish text (which is now lost). The title “Gospel of Barnabas” is mentioned in only two early (6th & 7th century) Christian lists of apocryphal works. If you are going to make the far-fetched claim that the Gospel of Barnabas that we have today is an authentic text of a 1st century Christian, you're going to have to back that up with some proof.

Here's the really ridiculous part: you claim that it is the “most authentic” and yet it proclaims Jesus was not the Messiah but that Muhammad was! And whoever wrote that supposed gospel is an idiot. He called Jesus “Jesus Christ” never realizing that Christos is the Greek for Messiah.

Also, the quotations of the Old Testament in this gospel correspond to the Latin Vulgate—a translation written centuries AFTER Barnabas.

Come on, Assad. Don't tell me you're going to succumb to intellectual dishonesty and stick by this obvious forgery.

[amar_labedi]

Assalamalaikum wa rahmatullahi wa baraktuhu


Thanks for the link

[Aayah]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Come on, Assad. Don't tell me you're going to succumb to intellectual dishonesty and stick by this obvious forgery.

I don't remember that the thread starter "br. Al Habeshi" said anything about this thread being a debate/discussion one. So please, lets keep this only for answering questions. Whoever think that s/he is capable to answer is welcomed here.

If anyone have anything to discuss....s/he is welcomed to start a new thread instead of posting here

[al-boriqee]

Listen TheLiar

you are the last person to be talking about intellectual dishonesty.

@habashi

asalamu alaikum akhee

I would like someone to explain how can those two verses complement each other rather than contradicting each other.

the first verse is by Paul claiming that he is the builder and founder, the next verse to it is telling the exact opposite thing that Jesus Peace be upon him is the founder

“According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the FOUNDATION, and another builds on it" (1 Corinthians 3:10)

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11)

I think I can explain this by assesing the text because no chrisitan is able to reconcile this text, so the only way to reconcile tem is the way I'm going to.

The first verse entails that Paul is the literal founder of his doctrine

in the second verse, paul was merely using the persona of Jesus alaihi Salam as the scape goat of his innovated theology. So in the second verse, Jesus alaihi Salam is more like the godfather in terms of using his name for the shirk that they believe in and Paul himself is the Don of christiandome

That is how they are reconciled

asalamu alaikum

[Aayah]

I always read that Christians refers to Jesus as "Son of David"

Who is David? is he the prophet David (Dawood) peace be upon him? and was he one of Jesus ancestors? in other words, his mother's ancestors?