tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Assalamualaikum.
In fact one very simple criterion of any religions is presented here. It is presented here as a simple yet effective refutation of Christianity but it works for all major religions of the world. Muslims usually begin their debate with Christians by telling them their holy book, the Bible, has been distorted much. But there is enough in the Bible to positively disprove the Christians' own claims. Isn't it better to start on a level both parties can agree on? Let's agree for the sake of argument that the Bible is, indeed, accurate. And I present an invitation to any and all Christians to refute the argument made below.
We studied in English 102 here at the American University in Dubai (AUD) and I am sure formal writing all over the world acknowledges the use and importance of thesis statements. Reasoning can only follow a claim. Isn't it foolish to try and prove something without making a claim first? So the same should be true for Holy Books. The New Testament is a series of letters written by various disciples of Christ. Christians believe that these letters (the Gospels and the letters following) are the word of God. That they are part of scripture as much as anything else.
The question, however, is whether Jesus ever called it the Word of God. Did Jesus ever say that the writings of his disciples were equivalent to being the Word of God? Christians might define the Word of God differently but it is a fact that nowhere in any of the four Gospels does one find any evidence of Jesus calling the Gospels or the letters that follow the Word of God. He doesn't even hint at it. The most he says about his disciples is that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit. And there is no denying that some of them were. But where did Jesus say that the letters written by Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Peter, James, Paul, etc. were the Word of God? Why do Christians fight tooth and nail trying to prove a claim that Jesus never made? Where is it written in the Gospels that the Gospels are, themselves, the Word of God? Any person reads the Gospels and can easily realize that they are the relations of various events in the memories of various humans. Are they anything more? Christians say yes. Priests preach it. That they are the Word of God. But forget proof. Forget lengthy discussions of why they are and why they are not. Forget all that.
Just show us: did Jesus say what you claim? If not, then why insist? Why even bother telling? Why even believe a book to be the Word of God if Jesus, himself, never said it was?
Lets assume for the sake of argument that if we read through the New Testament after completing the Old Testament any honest man would see that it is the word of God. But it is one thing to conclude that a book is amazing. It is another thing completely to claim that it is God's words. It is not for a human to conclude any writing is the Word of God if the writing never claims it to be. To say that every jot, every part, every sentence of the New Testament and of the letters therein is the Word of God and that it should be treated as such and to continue to blindly insist on this is one thing. But to, at least, show that claim in the book itself is completely another thing. Jesus should have categorically stated somewhere ... anywhere ... that the letters of his disciples were to be relied upon as the Word of God. And he should have told us exactly which letters too. He should have hinted at the great influence Paul was to have. Didn't the Old testament point to Jesus? Didn't Jesus fulfill many of the prophecies therein? It was because Jesus' advent was an important turning point in the history. So, for Christianity St. Paul marked that important point. Most of Christian theology today has, after all, been made explicit by Paul. But what many might not know is that Paul never saw Jesus as far as the Gospels are concerned. His authority solely lies in a vision he, himself, relates. But a being as important as Paul. One would hope that Jesus would have hinted something about Paul to his disciples. That the gospels would mention the Guidance by the Holy Spirit of Jesus' disciples along with one who was not among them, for example. But nothing. We find nothing of the sort. That Paul was to be guided by the Holy Spirit is not even hinted at. Yet it is his writings that make explicit theology of Christians today. A claim Christians strive to support without any hint of Jesus supporting that
claim. How sad is that?
And moreover all letters of correspondence between various disciples are not available to us. Surely Peter wrote much more than what we have of his writings in the Bible. So, if Peter's letters were the Word of God then, by inference, one would say the Word of God is lost in part ... huge part. Unless there is a place in the Bible where Jesus mentions exactly which letters are and which are not the Word of God. Does that not raise many dilemmas? Shouldn't Jesus have cleared all these questions by telling us what letters should constitute the New Testament? But we find that Jesus mentions nothing of the sort.
All he said was of guidance by the Holy Spirit of his disciples. But that is in no way equivalent to their words, letters, and relations to be the Word of God. There were many who were Guided by the Holy Spirit. And by Christian claim many Christians still are guided by the Holy Spirit. Then do Christians believe that their own words, their own stories, their own sentiments too should be a part of the Bible? The Holy Spirit guides select humans to write the Word of God. However, anyone guided by the Holy Spirit does not write the Words of God. Just calling someone guided by the Holy Spirit in no way means he or she has reached the level where their words are the words of God.
This argument can go on and on. If there is any Christian who can refute the above argument please come forward. In private or in comments it would be good to know. If not then isn't it time some of us reconsidered our beliefs? Can we adopt honesty and not blind faith for once!?
In fact one very simple criterion of any religions is presented here. It is presented here as a simple yet effective refutation of Christianity but it works for all major religions of the world. Muslims usually begin their debate with Christians by telling them their holy book, the Bible, has been distorted much. But there is enough in the Bible to positively disprove the Christians' own claims. Isn't it better to start on a level both parties can agree on? Let's agree for the sake of argument that the Bible is, indeed, accurate. And I present an invitation to any and all Christians to refute the argument made below.
We studied in English 102 here at the American University in Dubai (AUD) and I am sure formal writing all over the world acknowledges the use and importance of thesis statements. Reasoning can only follow a claim. Isn't it foolish to try and prove something without making a claim first? So the same should be true for Holy Books. The New Testament is a series of letters written by various disciples of Christ. Christians believe that these letters (the Gospels and the letters following) are the word of God. That they are part of scripture as much as anything else.
The question, however, is whether Jesus ever called it the Word of God. Did Jesus ever say that the writings of his disciples were equivalent to being the Word of God? Christians might define the Word of God differently but it is a fact that nowhere in any of the four Gospels does one find any evidence of Jesus calling the Gospels or the letters that follow the Word of God. He doesn't even hint at it. The most he says about his disciples is that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit. And there is no denying that some of them were. But where did Jesus say that the letters written by Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Peter, James, Paul, etc. were the Word of God? Why do Christians fight tooth and nail trying to prove a claim that Jesus never made? Where is it written in the Gospels that the Gospels are, themselves, the Word of God? Any person reads the Gospels and can easily realize that they are the relations of various events in the memories of various humans. Are they anything more? Christians say yes. Priests preach it. That they are the Word of God. But forget proof. Forget lengthy discussions of why they are and why they are not. Forget all that.
Just show us: did Jesus say what you claim? If not, then why insist? Why even bother telling? Why even believe a book to be the Word of God if Jesus, himself, never said it was?
Lets assume for the sake of argument that if we read through the New Testament after completing the Old Testament any honest man would see that it is the word of God. But it is one thing to conclude that a book is amazing. It is another thing completely to claim that it is God's words. It is not for a human to conclude any writing is the Word of God if the writing never claims it to be. To say that every jot, every part, every sentence of the New Testament and of the letters therein is the Word of God and that it should be treated as such and to continue to blindly insist on this is one thing. But to, at least, show that claim in the book itself is completely another thing. Jesus should have categorically stated somewhere ... anywhere ... that the letters of his disciples were to be relied upon as the Word of God. And he should have told us exactly which letters too. He should have hinted at the great influence Paul was to have. Didn't the Old testament point to Jesus? Didn't Jesus fulfill many of the prophecies therein? It was because Jesus' advent was an important turning point in the history. So, for Christianity St. Paul marked that important point. Most of Christian theology today has, after all, been made explicit by Paul. But what many might not know is that Paul never saw Jesus as far as the Gospels are concerned. His authority solely lies in a vision he, himself, relates. But a being as important as Paul. One would hope that Jesus would have hinted something about Paul to his disciples. That the gospels would mention the Guidance by the Holy Spirit of Jesus' disciples along with one who was not among them, for example. But nothing. We find nothing of the sort. That Paul was to be guided by the Holy Spirit is not even hinted at. Yet it is his writings that make explicit theology of Christians today. A claim Christians strive to support without any hint of Jesus supporting that
claim. How sad is that?
And moreover all letters of correspondence between various disciples are not available to us. Surely Peter wrote much more than what we have of his writings in the Bible. So, if Peter's letters were the Word of God then, by inference, one would say the Word of God is lost in part ... huge part. Unless there is a place in the Bible where Jesus mentions exactly which letters are and which are not the Word of God. Does that not raise many dilemmas? Shouldn't Jesus have cleared all these questions by telling us what letters should constitute the New Testament? But we find that Jesus mentions nothing of the sort.
All he said was of guidance by the Holy Spirit of his disciples. But that is in no way equivalent to their words, letters, and relations to be the Word of God. There were many who were Guided by the Holy Spirit. And by Christian claim many Christians still are guided by the Holy Spirit. Then do Christians believe that their own words, their own stories, their own sentiments too should be a part of the Bible? The Holy Spirit guides select humans to write the Word of God. However, anyone guided by the Holy Spirit does not write the Words of God. Just calling someone guided by the Holy Spirit in no way means he or she has reached the level where their words are the words of God.
This argument can go on and on. If there is any Christian who can refute the above argument please come forward. In private or in comments it would be good to know. If not then isn't it time some of us reconsidered our beliefs? Can we adopt honesty and not blind faith for once!?
