How to reply?


#1

I was debating with a muslim when she told me this (paraphrasing):

Jesus never claimed divinity as the Bible claims. In fact many scholars at Bob Jones University believe key parts of the gospels were changes to support the claim to divinity. Also the bible does not mention the trinity. The trinity was also not accepted by Peter or the Apostles.

Besides asking for evidence, what do I say to this?


#2

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”


#3

Mark 1;9-11 It was at this time that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptised in the Jordan by John. No sooner had he come up out of the water than he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit, like a dove, descending on him. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; my favour rests on you."


#4

Muslims often claim that key part of both the Old and New Testaments were changed to support various Jewish of Christian claims. But they have never been able to produce the supposed original versions, or anything hinting at them. There is no evidence that the books were ever radically changed, but there is good evidence that they were fairly consistent over time.


#5

What evidence for consistency are there?


#6

[quote="FireFromHeaven, post:5, topic:321576"]
What evidence for consistency are there?

[/quote]

Where is the evidence that Mohammad was the final prophet? We we start searching for "evidence" then we often allow our faith to suffer. ;)


#7

[quote="FireFromHeaven, post:1, topic:321576"]
I was debating with a muslim when she told me this (paraphrasing):

Jesus never claimed divinity as the Bible claims. In fact many scholars at Bob Jones University believe key parts of the gospels were changes to support the claim to divinity. Also the bible does not mention the trinity. The trinity was also not accepted by Peter or the Apostles.

Besides asking for evidence, what do I say to this?

[/quote]

Offer your interlocutor a list of "demands" in return--see here, here, and here--to demonstrate the inconsistency of a Muslim in raising such objections.


#8

I'm looking for evidence that no one tampered with the new testament. That will only hurt my faith if there is evidence for tampering.


#9

[quote="Trebor135, post:7, topic:321576"]
Offer your interlocutor a list of "demands" in return--see here, here, and here--to demonstrate the inconsistency of a Muslim in raising such objections./QUOTE
Ok thanks.

[/quote]


#10

[quote="FireFromHeaven, post:8, topic:321576"]
I'm looking for evidence that no one tampered with the new testament. That will only hurt my faith if there is evidence for tampering.

[/quote]

The New Testament hasn't been tampered with.

In fact, the Islamic scriptures seem to agree. See "The Quran Confirms the Bible Has Never Been Corrupted" part 1 / part 2, "The Quran confirms the veracity of the Holy Bible" part 1 / part 2, and "The incorruptibility of Allah's words and the charge of Biblical corruption".

Happy reading! :p


#11

[quote="FireFromHeaven, post:8, topic:321576"]
I'm looking for evidence that no one tampered with the new testament. That will only hurt my faith if there is evidence for tampering.

[/quote]

First I agree that searching for evidence is never bad. The only bad thing is expecting evidence that is not possible or has no reason to exist.

That said, showing that the text has not been tampered with is a hard thing simply because it's old. To show definitively that it has not been tampered with would require showing the actual originals and also showing that they are the originals. But we can give some evidence that makes it seem unlikely, and I refer you to here: tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html.

However, we can also approach the question purely rationally: Scripture comes from God - would He give it us and not protect it? To say no is silly, but some might say that His protection only means sending someone else along later to correct it when we mess it up. But this is little better - there are liars and fools in addition to prophets, and if I cannot even use the books of scripture to determine whether a given person is such a person, then the sending of someone (especially someone who doesn't work miracles to back up their claims, such as Mohammed) to correct misinterpretations is useless. And if that person came a long time ago, it's even more useless, because if God only protects scriptures by sending people to correct them, what reason do I have to believe that the current teachings presented as Islam are actually what Mohammed taught, even if for some reason I have accepted that he was a prophet?

The whole idea destroys all certainty in revelation, which rather defeats the purpose.


#12

Jesus said that he was greater than the Temple. The only thing greater than the Temple was God who dwelled in the Temple.

Jesus said that he was Lord of the Sabbath. The sabbath is a divine institution. The only one who could be Lord of the Sabbath is God himself.

Jesus claimed to be both of these things.

Jesus said "The Father and I are one". He didn't say like one or as if one, but are one.

-Tim-


#13

Tim--unfortunately, Muslims won't accept those arguments, since they insist that Jesus declare, "I am God; worship me!", in those exact words: otherwise, they believe, his statements are not clear enough for us to conclude that he was claiming to have a divine nature.

Which is why Christians have to pose the same type of questions to Muslims about how explicitly the Qur'an supports their doctrines (see the links in my first post in this thread).


#14

[quote="Iron_Donkey, post:11, topic:321576"]
First I agree that searching for evidence is never bad. The only bad thing is expecting evidence that is not possible or has no reason to exist.

That said, showing that the text has not been tampered with is a hard thing simply because it's old. To show definitively that it has not been tampered with would require showing the actual originals and also showing that they are the originals. But we can give some evidence that makes it seem unlikely, and I refer you to here: tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html.

However, we can also approach the question purely rationally: Scripture comes from God - would He give it us and not protect it? To say no is silly, but some might say that His protection only means sending someone else along later to correct it when we mess it up. But this is little better - there are liars and fools in addition to prophets, and if I cannot even use the books of scripture to determine whether a given person is such a person, then the sending of someone (especially someone who doesn't work miracles to back up their claims, such as Mohammed) to correct misinterpretations is useless. And if that person came a long time ago, it's even more useless, because if God only protects scriptures by sending people to correct them, what reason do I have to believe that the current teachings presented as Islam are actually what Mohammed taught, even if for some reason I have accepted that he was a prophet?

The whole idea destroys all certainty in revelation, which rather defeats the purpose.

[/quote]

:thumbsup: That is great.


#15

:

[quote="Trebor135, post:10, topic:321576"]
The New Testament hasn't been tampered with.

In fact, the Islamic scriptures seem to agree. See "The Quran Confirms the Bible Has Never Been Corrupted" part 1 / part 2, "The Quran confirms the veracity of the Holy Bible" part 1 / part 2, and "The incorruptibility of Allah's words and the charge of Biblical corruption".

Happy reading! :p

[/quote]

:rotfl:
Whoa. My eyes are hurting already. If all 5 articles are as high quality as the first one this will end quickly.


#16

Hi Fire ~

Hope you’re well!

Muslims will parrot over and over that the Bible has been corrupted.

Christians try to show muslims that it has not been corrupted.

On one breath…

Muslim said: “Oh yeah, your Bible is corrupted”

Christian reply: “No it’s not… show us the corruption, when and who did it occur”

… crickets chirping…

On the other breath…

Muslim said… “Oh look, our prophet Mohammad is in the Bible. Moses prophesized about him, Solomon spoke of him, even Jesus tells the Christians that he will send Mohammad”

Christian reply:… “Oh right… we managed to corrupt our Bible, but we left references about your prophet in there”.

Muslims claim that Jesus never said… “I am God, worship me”.

This is what a desert dweller in the 7th century said to his people of the land… “I am a messenger of God and a prophet of God, listen to me”

That’s all it took for Islam to rise.

The Jews of the land laughed at him and tested him and he failed miserably.

Also, you need to understand that muslims do not have the “original” writings of the Quran from Mohammads time.

The “original” scripture was scribed on parchment paper, animal bones, wood and other materials.

All of these are gone.

After Mohammads death, there were 7 **different **Qurans floating around in Arabia.

Uthman collected all of them, created one final copy of the Quran and burned all 7 different variants of the Quran.

The Quran is not in chronological order whatsoever. It is compiled in a hodgepodge manner by Uthman.

If you read the hadiths ( remember last week I told you to read them… :stuck_out_tongue: ), you’ll see that Aisha claimed a few things.

Parts of the written scripture was stored under Mohammads bed. A goat came into the dwelling and ate the scripture.

Another claim by Aisha was that the “stoning” verse has been left out of the Quran but made it’s way into the hadiths.

Google and study the Yemen Quran. It is a recent discovery and it’s an old Quran. Nothing like the Quran of today.

All my best in your research.


#17

[quote="Trebor135, post:13, topic:321576"]
Tim--unfortunately, Muslims won't accept those arguments, since they insist that Jesus declare, "I am God; worship me!", in those exact words: otherwise, they believe, his statements are not clear enough for us to conclude that he was claiming to have a divine nature.

Which is why Christians have to pose the same type of questions to Muslims about how explicitly the Qur'an supports their doctrines (see the links in my first post in this thread).

[/quote]

Exactly. I normally don't like answering a question with a question, but this seems to be the best approach to at least put Muslims in an open frame of mind, that the Bible is a different kind of book and Christianity a different kind of faith than the Koran and Islam. They might be unable or unwilling to think outside the Islamic box, however.

In my experience, Muslims insist on the exact phrase, "I am God; worship me." Although there is plenty to construct a pretty convincing picture, they will not accept it in one fashion or another, from their own (mis)interpretation to the claim of corruption.

[quote="aidanbradypop, post:6, topic:321576"]
Where is the evidence that Mohammad was the final prophet? We we start searching for "evidence" then we often allow our faith to suffer.

[/quote]

The "miracle" of the uncorrupted Koran is their "evidence." Like it is the only document in history to be preserved. It may be relatively intact, but the validity of the message and the messenger can certainly be questioned.

[quote="OxygenMan, post:4, topic:321576"]
Muslims often claim that key part of both the Old and New Testaments were changed to support various Jewish of Christian claims. But they have never been able to produce the supposed original versions, or anything hinting at them. There is no evidence that the books were ever radically changed, but there is good evidence that they were fairly consistent over time.

[/quote]

Another "Bingo!" They can never produce the so-called "Injeel." As far as hints, they do bring up the non-canonical books. They also gleen scholarly discussion, so common in a free and open society outside of Islam, for differences of opinion. Such exchanges in Islamic culture would likely bring about a death fatwa for someone.

[quote="Trebor135, post:7, topic:321576"]
Offer your interlocutor a list of "demands" in return--see here, here, and here--to demonstrate the inconsistency of a Muslim in raising such objections.

[/quote]

I have mixed feelings about answeringislam. It is sometimes a bit long-winded. Sometimes it just swings and misses, prompting a Muslim response that is reasonable and rational. I wouldn't be surprised if they could come up with some pretty decent replies to 1. b abd c in the second link, for example.
I think the answering islam makes a lot of stuff more complicated than it has to be. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of resources like it. Muslims spend a lot of time, energy and resources attempting to undermine the Christian faith. We should have resources to defend it better on-line, for example.

However, I do like Shamoun's approach of putting the onus, the burden of proof, on Islam in its repudiation of Christianity. If Christianity is such a huge misunderstanding, one would think the critics would have something more substantive than "They killed him not."


#18

[quote="LtTony, post:17, topic:321576"]
Exactly. I normally don't like answering a question with a question, but this seems to be the best approach to at least put Muslims in an open frame of mind, that the Bible is a different kind of book and Christianity a different kind of faith than the Koran and Islam. They might be unable or unwilling to think outside the Islamic box, however.

[/quote]

Indeed.

In my experience, Muslims insist on the exact phrase, "I am God; worship me." Although there is plenty to construct a pretty convincing picture, they will not accept it in one fashion or another, from their own (mis)interpretation to the claim of corruption.

The exercise is revealed to be entirely pointless when one realizes that, even if a passage fitting the Muslim's criteria were presented, he would immediately reject it as a forged statement that the trinitarians later attributed to him.

They can never produce the so-called "Injeel." As far as hints, they do bring up the non-canonical books.

The scriptures of heretics cannot be said to teach a religion resembling Islam in any case, so for a Muslim to point to any of them as the original "Gospel of Jesus" is bizarre and laughable.

I have mixed feelings about answeringislam. It is sometimes a bit long-winded. Sometimes it just swings and misses, prompting a Muslim response that is reasonable and rational. I wouldn't be surprised if they could come up with some pretty decent replies to 1. b abd c in the second link, for example.
I think the answering islam makes a lot of stuff more complicated than it has to be. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of resources like it. Muslims spend a lot of time, energy and resources attempting to undermine the Christian faith. We should have resources to defend it better on-line, for example.

I agree, Answering Islam is far from perfect; fairly often its authors make a mountain out of a molehill, in my view. But also fairly often they put out intriguing, even devastating, material.

My linking to those three challenges was not intended to suggest that I would use all of their contents. Rather, I was hoping that they would provide a starting point for the OP to acquire some suitably strong comebacks.

I really wish someone of the calibre of Robert Sungenis would step up to the plate, conducting debates with Muslim apologists and writing articles refuting Islam.

However, I do like Shamoun's approach of putting the onus, the burden of proof, on Islam in its repudiation of Christianity. If Christianity is such a huge misunderstanding, one would think the critics would have something more substantive than "They killed him not."

Yes. :)


#19

[quote="jakasaki, post:16, topic:321576"]
Hi Fire ~

Hope you're well!

Muslims will parrot over and over that the Bible has been corrupted.

Christians try to show muslims that it has not been corrupted.

On one breath...

Muslim said: "Oh yeah, your Bible is corrupted"

Christian reply: "No it's not... show us the corruption, when and who did it occur"

.... crickets chirping.......

On the other breath...

Muslim said... "Oh look, our prophet Mohammad is in the Bible. Moses prophesized about him, Solomon spoke of him, even Jesus tells the Christians that he will send Mohammad"

Christian reply:.... "Oh right.... we managed to corrupt our Bible, but we left references about your prophet in there".

Muslims claim that Jesus never said... "I am God, worship me".

This is what a desert dweller in the 7th century said to his people of the land.... "I am a messenger of God and a prophet of God, listen to me"

That's all it took for Islam to rise.

The Jews of the land laughed at him and tested him and he failed miserably.

Also, you need to understand that muslims do not have the "original" writings of the Quran from Mohammads time.

The "original" scripture was scribed on parchment paper, animal bones, wood and other materials.

All of these are gone.

After Mohammads death, there were 7 **different **Qurans floating around in Arabia.

Uthman collected all of them, created one final copy of the Quran and burned all 7 different variants of the Quran.

The Quran is not in chronological order whatsoever. It is compiled in a hodgepodge manner by Uthman.

If you read the hadiths ( remember last week I told you to read them... :p ), you'll see that Aisha claimed a few things.

Parts of the written scripture was stored under Mohammads bed. A goat came into the dwelling and ate the scripture.

Another claim by Aisha was that the "stoning" verse has been left out of the Quran but made it's way into the hadiths.

Google and study the Yemen Quran. It is a recent discovery and it's an old Quran. Nothing like the Quran of today.

All my best in your research.

[/quote]

Still haven't got my nasty infidel hands on a copy yet. :D


#20

[quote="FireFromHeaven, post:19, topic:321576"]
Still haven't got my nasty infidel hands on a copy yet. :D

[/quote]

A copy of the Uthmanic Qur'an, the official Hadith, or the Yemeni Qur'an?

(You quoted the whole post so I was confused.)

And are there even copies of the Yemeni text available in the West, let alone scans posted online? What's happening with the book now?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.