Posted by giveawayboy on September 30, 2001 at 10:06:48:
In Reply to: I have been looking into the differences in the Christian and the Muslim, as far as the "religion" is concerned. posted by Bryon on September 28, 2001 at 10:36:29:
Bryon,
Thanks for that link. Hey, great stuff on the Bible. Here are a few things I liked:
As it happens, the title "Bible" is a name not found in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible name itself as a unit. Actually it is at least 66 separate writings which have been bound as one book. The earlier catalogue of contents that agrees with the present text dates from the fourth century. This indicates that the Bible has no internal claim of unity. Of course, the writings speak of other writings, scriptures and books but not as the unit of today's collection.
This is true. And we must recall that this one book, the unit we can go buy now at Barnes& Noble or Tampa Christian Supply did not exist in that form in the days of the original Christians. When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, it said that tongues of fire appeared over the heads of the disciples. It didn't mention any books in codex form slamming down from the heavens onto the streets of Jerusalem. It was hundreds of years before such units existed and they weren't available to everyone. Infact, they used to chain the Bibles to the churches, so that marauding bands of thieves would not come steal them. Some Protestants have inherited the lie which says that they were chained there so the Church could keep other Christians from reading them. Not true. However, since they were usually bedecked with all sorts of fine jewels and gems, they were candidate for becoming hot items. So the early church had no Bible as we know it.
Almost the last verse in the Bible commands that "nothing should be added to or subtracted from this book". While this has been quoted as a unifying statement, any Christian source will verify that the last book in the Bible was not the last book written. Thus the statement can only apply to this particular small book of the Bible's 66.
This is true. This verse cannot refer to the entire Bible.
Nowhere does the Bible sum itself up as totally God's word. However, the missionary argument proceeds this way. At 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul says that all scripture is inspired of God. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter says that Paul is correct because Paul too is a writer of scripture. Surely this is not supposed to convince anyone! "Paul says so and Peter says he is right." This kind of argument would not satisfy us if we were investigating any matter. Moreover, we have Paul's denial of his own total inspiration at 1 Corinthians 7:25. Here he states that he writes without God's inspiration on a subject.
Exactly, even that 2 Timothy verse, which has been used to justify everyone's personal opinion from time immemorial, says nothing about what words ARE scripture. It just says all scripture. I should get Kumar to do a Greek study on it for me. I'd do it myself, but my resources for that are packed away. Plus, I think I had to sell my Greek NT so I'd need to go online or research it another way. Anyway, us Catholics, and scholarly Protestants are always getting hit by well-meaning but ill-informed bible-only brothers who are telling us that this 2 Timothy verse suggests the idea that the Bible alone is our source for teaching and instruction. This is called Sola Scriptura. However the belief is bogus based on a real look at the text (in English in this case). The verse mentions that scripture is profitable for certain things. But it never says that this the Bible is the basic text for everything we believe. Indeed there are many things Christians practice that cannot be found in the Bible, period. We could start with communion services (they are implied but not described in scripture), (church buildings--never mentioned), etc. When we advanced the claim that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, and provide logical arguments for that, the Sola Scriptura people simply stand their ground, maintaining their unscriptural position, in the light of the Scriptures themselves which do not affirm such a belief anywhere.
As far as the rest of what they wrote, I'll have to say that the Muslim asks questions which can be veery uncomfortable to Christians, but for the sake of truth, let them ask. Also, I do not feel compelled to agree with someone's explanations but proof is real nice (here I echo the words of the link you sent). I appreciated alot of the points they made. However, I don't feel swayed from believing that Christianity is God's revealed way to walk. I believe in Jesus still in the way the Nicene Creed describes him.
Have a great day!
Bill