/christianity/ - Christian Theology

gay

>>3958

>any attempts to proselytize from our Islamic friends are not acceptable

Why? Islam is essentially based on the belief, that Jesus Christ didn't die at the cross (for our sins), which is an ahistoric belief not supported by any existing evidence.

So what is there to discuss? Mohammed's child brides? Sexual rewards in "heaven"?

The only way to get saved and into heaven is through Jesus Christ.

As a non-practicing (doesn't go to Church, say traditional prayers) Christian, why should I convert to Islam?

Also I'm a sinner (anger issues)

>>3971

Because Jesus was a Muslim:

"And (remember) when 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), said: 'O Children of Israel! I am the Messenger of Allah unto you confirming the Taurat (Torah) which came before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.'" - As-Saf 61:6

He even disproves the Trinity in your own Bible:

"As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. 'Good Teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' 'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good–except God alone.'" - Mark 10:17-18

Paul founded Christianity, not Jesus (PBUH).

>>3965

What do the gospels have to say about Jesus' marriages?

As for child brides particularly then don't christians believe Mary was a child when she was made pregnant with God by God(with unclear consent)? Or is there a discrepancy among denominations?

>>3979

This is a laughably poor argument that just pre-supposed that (any) bible = revelation. Clearly this video can not be intended for a Muslim audience so I'm not sure what relevancy it has to this thread.

>has to agree with the bible

which bible and why that one in particular?

>>3981

Why does the Quran say Christians include Mary in the Trinity, and that Jews say Ezra is the Son of God? Why does it say that the Injeel testifies to Mohammad, when it clearly doesn't?

If Islam was wrong, it wouldn’t be so 😎

>>3977

>Mark 10:17-18 disproves the Trinity

this one always makes me laugh, it's actually good evidence for the Trinity, and Jesus is claiming divinity here.

>X: why do you call me Y?

>X: only Z is Y

two possibilities:

>A: X is both Y and Z

>B: X is neither Y nor Z

we know Jesus is good (X is Y)

>John 10:11, John 8:46, Hebrews 4:15, Hebrews 7:26, 2 Corinthians 5:21, etc

therefore, we know Jesus is God

>>3977

I agree with the guy who says that doesn't disprove the trinity. It's like when Heraclitus says "…not listening to me, but to Logos" in one of his aphorisms.

I've always had the suspicion that the problem with Islam is that it's too straight forward, too lacking in logical depth. I've had it since I've heard that in prison Islam gains more converts than Christianity, because instead of offering the believer problems to make sense of, it offers solutions on how to live one's life. Does that make sense?

>>3962

I pretended to be Muslim on /christian/ and you idiots fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Damn, you people are retarded.

>>3989

Why didn't you answer my questions that were part of the discussion raised by>>3965

>>3991

If everything good is God then you have to add these cows and heads of grain:

>26 The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good heads of grain are seven years; it is one and the same dream.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+41:26&version=NIV

>>3995

We actually yes, Goodness is God. Read Palamite Orthodox literature, you will see that Goodness is in everything, it is what keeps everything together and within existence. This Goodness then must be God who is contained in everything and everything in him. This does not mean the universe and God are the same, the universe is a quite separate substance, but it is within God. It is within Goodness and Beauty. Jesus makes even more direct statement about himself being good, as shown in the scripture the anon above posted, implying he is more than just spiritually united with Goodness as you would attain through Theosis, but actually Goodness itself as God the Father is Goodness. He is the Good Shepherd, and we know God the Father is the Good Shepherd (Psalm 23:1).

>>3997

*Well

>>3997

>Read Palamite Orthodox literature

I'll stick with the bible for now.

>as shown in the scripture the anon above posted

he said Jesus' being described as good proves his being God. But neither the good samaritan is God nor the cows and grain?

Perhaps it's a quantitativem matter. If 0 represents a being that is wholly in sin, and 1 represents a being that is wholly without sin, or absolutely good, and the being that is absolutely good is God, but Jesus is absolutely good, then Jesus is God. Is that right? I apologize that I'm not an expert.

Oh, what a fool I am. It says in the scripture that he denies his goodness. I figure we would have to distinguish between his essence as man and his essence as divine.

>>3989

Mohammad had no clue what he was saying and just made shit up as he went along

>>4007

>You don't debunk any of the quotes

Yes I did, I just debunked the first quote that he misrepresented to build his entire "dilemma" on. His entire premise is that Muslim has a dilemma because "the bible" is from God. That's not an argument. It's like saying christians reject the commands of God, and the proof is that they reject the Quran, haha, gotcha!

But I'll debunk more of the misrepresentations and poor arguments: The video lies and says that Muslim says that "God couldn't protect His words". First of all we don't say that, and secondly, by the video's own logic, God couldn't protect His own words according to christians since

1) not all of Jesus' words were recorded in your bible by its own admission, hence God failed in protecting His words.

and

2) any one christian denomination has to say that all other denominations corrupted the bible and thus corrupted God's word, making Him again uncapable of protecting it.

Thirdly, the word "word" in Quran is used to mean decree. So the "changing of God's words" the Quran denies being possible, doesn't mean that I write "GOD" on a paper and then cross it out, or I open a Quran translation in microsoft word and start editing it, thereby "changing" His words, but rather, changing God's decree.

Fourthly, in the old testament, proverbs 30:5-6, we find it said:

>Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

So the possibility of jews/christian trying to change his words is established according to your own book even, and you were rebuked and proven liars when God revealed the Quran.

Fifthly, the Quran explicitly say that it clarified what was revealed, meaning it stands over the gospel, and not the other way around as the video tries to claim:

>(We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.[16:44]

>translations

nice try but first of all it's not just translations but every christian denomination will have a different canon and hence a different "the bible". They can't all be the word of God at the same time.

So again, your video claims that according to the Quran, Muslims need to accept "the bible". That's why I ask: WHICH bible and why that one in particular according to the Quran? If you can't even answer this then everything else in your "argument" also fails.

>She got pregnant but didn't have sex, it's was called a virgin birth for a reason.

that wasn't an answer to anything I asked.

It seems all you can do is post videos that you can't even begin to defend nor interact with anything else in my posts, which makes this not a debate.

>>4012

There verse in question is not meant to be viewed from a literal, 'scientific- standpoint, because it only mentions how the natural phenomenon of the "Sun setting" appeared from Dhul Qurnayn's perspective.

Quran 18-86-88: Yusuf Ali's Translation

>86. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

>87. He said: "Whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and He will punish him with a punishment unheard-of (before).

>88. "But whoever believes, and works righteousness,- he shall have a goodly reward, and easy will be his task as We order it by our Command

﴿ ﴾

>(he found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah) meaning, he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed. Hami'ah is, according to one of the two views, derived from the word Hama'ah, which means mud. This is like the Ayah:

﴿ ﴾

>("I am going to create a man (Adam) from dried clay of altered Hama'h (mud)) ﴿15:28﴾, which means smooth mud, as we have discussed above

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2704&Itemid=73

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2705&Itemid=73#1

But doesn't Islam have different denominations, and interpretations of the Quran as well?

>>4024

Of course you based most of your post on the weakest part of the video (the "there is none who can change his words" bit) and devoted the rest to declaring the Quran stands above the gospel and whining about muh Bible canons.

So let's take another look at the Quran passages he cites:

>Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet. Whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) - in the Torah and the Gospel - it is they who will prosper. [7:157]

>Let the people of the gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therin. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. [5:47]

>Say: "O people of the book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." [5:68]

If the Torah and the Gospel are corrupted, why does Allah speak of them this way without warning them of this corruption? Do you propose that the contemporaries of an illiterate seventh-century man had access to uncorrupted or less corrupted versions of these? The 27 book New Testament was considered canon hundreds of years before Muhammad's birth and still is for the vast majority of the world's Christians. The Old Testament is a bit more complicated but the 39 books of the Protestant/Jewish canon are shared with basically everyone since, yet again, hundreds of years before Muhammad. Whatever apocryphal OT books were included in the canons of Muhammad's contemporaries, we still have a solid baseline of 66 books.

>>4066

I refuted the literal MAIN arguments of the video and provided several examples of them lying and misinterpreting the Quran. Why did you post the video if you refuse to defend it? You should've made it clear that you think the video is weak then. It's not my problem your arguments are shitty and can't be defended in a debate that you invited me to in the first place. You should continue using the videos for their intended purposes only: propaganda for intentionally blind christians.

It's pretty clear you have no interest in a debate since you just ignored everything in my post that was a RESPONSE TO YOUR ARGUMENT. So just admit defeat and stop embarrassing yourself further, and stop trying to waste my time with your silly troll tactics.

You still didn't answer a SINGLE challenge I've presented. The rest of your post was already adressed, you just re-phrased it.

Next time don't bother with your fake invitations. I'm not sure what you sought to gain by it. If your plan was all along to waste my time then congratulations I guess?

Was it kino?

Have Muslims conceded the "Trinity is polytheism" point yet?

>One in essence

>Three in persons

This is a paradox, not a contradiction

>One in person

>Three in person

This would be a contradiction. This is what Muslims (in my experience) think they are facing.

>This is a paradox, not a contradiction

How is this a paradox? Have you read the Cappadocian Fathers? One ousia, three hypostases; three distinct existences within the divine Ousia, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's not that hard to understand. The idea that the Trinity is somehow a paradox that is cannot be understood at all and we must just accept it by faith is just a meme.

>>4111

I am using paradox in philosophical terms. The Trinity has classically been referred to as a paradox.

>>4028

Funny Sunan Abu Dawud 3991 says:

Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

>>3958

I just don't see how this would be productive. I like watching actual apologists debate, because its moderated and the participants are identified and held responsible for their intellectual honesty by all those observing. Neither of those crucial aspects are present on an anonymous message board. I think that's why you won't find any debate-oriented boards; they are all themed according to the interests and identities of the userbase.

Muhammad was a murderous thieving pedophile, and anything taught by such a "prophet" is worthless. That's all there is to it. You do not debate with evil.