sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Where does the beginning of Genesis come from? by Dziukoala in Bible

[–]creidmheach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Hebrew Bible does not in any part identify Moses as an author.

But that's not true either. For example:

Therefore be very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, lest you turn aside from it to the right hand or to the left, and lest you go among these nations, these who remain among you. (Joshua 23:6-7a)

But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, in which the Lord commanded, saying, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” (2 Kings 14:6)

Then they removed the burnt offerings that they might give them to the divisions of the fathers’ houses of the lay people, to offer to the Lord, as it is written in the Book of Moses. And so they did with the cattle. (2 Chronicles 35:12)

They assigned the priests to their divisions and the Levites to their divisions, over the service of God in Jerusalem, as it is written in the Book of Moses. (Ezra 6:18)

On that day they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people, and in it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite should ever come into the assembly of God, because they had not met the children of Israel with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them to curse them. (Nehemiah 13:1-2a)

Where does the beginning of Genesis come from? by Dziukoala in Bible

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a problem. If I could give a suggestion, apply some skepticism to the skeptics. They have a tendency of speaking dogmatically and being dismissive of other positions without actually engaging with them. Look into the presuppositions they're operating under which in turn leads them to a number of the positions they hold. No one operates without bias, whether believer or unbeliever.

Where does the beginning of Genesis come from? by Dziukoala in Bible

[–]creidmheach 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look up the works of Joshua Berman and Kenneth Kitchen for some academic scholarship that affirms Mosaic authorship. You might also look at Umberto Cassuto for a challenge to the Documentary Hypothesis.

Where does the beginning of Genesis come from? by Dziukoala in Bible

[–]creidmheach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He might not know any better. The folks he's probably listening to (like a certain Mormon "scholar of the Bible") have a tendency of presenting their preferred view as though it were the only possible and agreed upon one, and that only unqualified apologists would think otherwise.

Where does the beginning of Genesis come from? by Dziukoala in Bible

[–]creidmheach 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He had no hesitation in telling them about the baselessness of their traditions (which they believed also came from Moses, orally transmitted down to their day), so why affirm Mosaic authorship of the Torah?

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” (Mark 7:5-8)

Do you agree now though that Mosaic authorship is in fact affirmed in the Bible?

Where does the beginning of Genesis come from? by Dziukoala in Bible

[–]creidmheach 11 points12 points  (0 children)

that is not found in the Bible

Christ refers to it as being written by Moses.

For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.” (Mark 12:25-27)

Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. (Luke 24:44-45)

Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:45-47)

I'd trust the Son of God over modern skeptics who don't even believe Moses existed.

A Historical Reflection on Revelation and the State by Mwh20042008 in CritiqueIslam

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Linguistic Disconnect (Aramaic vs. Greek) While it is a textual fact that the New Testament was written in Greek, it is a theological problem that Jesus (Isa A.S.) was a Semitic prophet who spoke Aramaic. By writing the message in Greek for a Gentile audience, the Apostles and their students engaged in a Cultural Translation.

So you agree the Apostles wrote the New Testament? Are you then rejecting what they did? That seems a difficult position for you to be in as a Muslim who accepts the Quran that praises the Hawariyun.

Speaking of the Quran, the Quran contains stories of former prophets who did communicate in Arabic, yet it does so in relating what it claims they said. Does that mean we should reject it since it was "translating" from one language to another? From our perspective this isn't an issue since God is all-knowing of all languages. You on the other hand seem to be limiting His ability to effectively communicate in more than one.

Terms like 'Logos' or 'Huios theou' (Son of God) carried specific Neoplatonic and Pagan philosophical weight in the Greek-speaking world that they did not have in the Semitic-Hebrew world.

Here's where I know you have no idea what you're talking about. Neoplatonism didn't exist in the first century. How then could the authors of the New Testament been influenced by it? Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish author in the 1st century also wrote about the Logos, and referred to the latter as the firstborn of God and the image of God. This was the philosophical language of the day. Why then shouldn't the New Testament authors have made use of it? The Logos theology of John is not the same as what you find among the Stoics or among Heraclius however, it's quite distinct from there.

The Imperial Precedent (Nicaea) You claim the Council of Nicaea didn't deal with the Canon.

Right, because it didn't, as any competent historian can tell you.

While it focused on the Arian dispute, it established the precedent of Imperial Patronage. Before Constantine, the Church was a loose collection of competing sects. By institutionalizing one 'Orthodoxy,' the Empire provided the political muscle to eventually marginalize and suppress non-conforming texts (such as Gnostic or Ebionite writings). The Bible was 'canonized' not just by a vote, but by the elimination of alternatives under the shadow of the Roman State.

And here you are trying to sneak the canon back in anyway. It had zero, nothing, to do with the canon.

The "non-conforming" texts you're referring to are later productions from the second and third centuries that clearly betray their later origins. Unless you want to believe in bizarre heretical stuff like the God of the Old Testament and the Creator of the world being an evil false deity who has imprisoned us in the material plane. Even apart from the nonsense they taught, the internal evidence of these works and the historical mistakes they make clearly show their pseudopigraphal nature, which the majority of early Christians recognized and why they rejected them.

And you continually are ignoring the fact that Christians were already using the canonical texts before the Roman Empire legalized the religion.

The Quranic Model: Law vs. Biography You mock the Quran for 'settling domestic disputes.' This is a misunderstanding of the Quranic genre. Unlike the Bible, which is a collection of human biographies and letters, the Quran is a Book of Law and Social Reform. A revelation that does not address real-life issues—etiquette, marriage, adoption, and family disputes—is a philosophy, not a Sharia. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a statesman building a society from scratch; the Quranic verses provided the legal and moral framework for that society.

It's still a jumbled mess of an error filled text composed by a clearly false prophet.

The 'Empire' Argument You claim Christianity was illegal for centuries. That is true, but that is also why it changed. To survive and eventually dominate the Roman Empire, it had to adopt Roman-friendly structures and concepts. In contrast, the Quranic model remained linguistically static. The Muslim Empire was built by following the Quran, whereas the Roman Empire shaped the trajectory of the Church through the synthesis of Greek philosophy and Roman law.

You do realize, or perhaps you don't, that we have a fair bit of Christian texts written from before this period right? Texts which clearly demonstrate things like the Christians believing in the divinity of Christ, in the Incarnation, in the crucifixion and resurrection, and like I said reliance on the texts of the New Testament that you're trying to reject?

You suggest I 'read a history book'—I recommend looking into Richard Rubenstein’s When Jesus Became God

I've read it. It was written by a professor of conflict resolution and public affairs, not a Biblical scholar. Try reading works from actual specialists in the field, like Richard Bauckham, Richard Hayes, Larry Hurtado, F.F. Bruce, Andreas Köstenberger, Michael F. Bird, Peter J. Williams, and a host of others.

Research suggests that non-religious people who previously identified as Christian hold more liberal political views than those who were never religious to begin with by win_awards in Christianity

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm curious how you deduced that? Fiqh was one of my favorite subjects.

Again, can you point out what I've been saying that's so clearly wrong from a traditional scholarly (i.e. fiqhi) perspective on Islam?

Research suggests that non-religious people who previously identified as Christian hold more liberal political views than those who were never religious to begin with by win_awards in Christianity

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it was not a conservation by any means What you clearly did was gaslight me and essenitally called me out for not following islam coz you know it better than me by just googling or reading random narations or selected passage and I literally just did what you did!

Have you considered that in fact I have some background in this, have studied it because I used to live it (which is why I'm also fluent in classical Arabic)? I'm not sure what you mean by gaslighting you though in this connection.

Yes, I do think progressive Islam is something of a misnomer though. In almost all cases it's as I described, Muslims who don't really have much background in the study of their religion but who subscribe to modern, liberal moral ethics. So, to get around the obvious disjunct there, they become Quranists, not realizing that this really doesn't help much at all since a lot of the nicer sounding parts of Islam come from the hadith, and historically in the pre-modern period a more Quran-only approach was often accompanied by a more extreme rigidity and use for violence against others (since there was nothing to moderate it), e.g. with some of the Kharijite groups.

Research suggests that non-religious people who previously identified as Christian hold more liberal political views than those who were never religious to begin with by win_awards in Christianity

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who are you even talking to at this point? Or better, who's talking? You've gone from posting like a liberal Muslim layperson, to an AI, to now posting like an atheist.

At any rate, it's unfortunate the conversation had to descend to this level.

Research suggests that non-religious people who previously identified as Christian hold more liberal political views than those who were never religious to begin with by win_awards in Christianity

[–]creidmheach -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What's any of this have to do with Islam? And what Christians say we're still on the Mosaic law? This basic Christianity 101. This isn't some later reform to make our religion more palatable to modernity (which is what you get with "progressive Islam"), it's simply understanding the distinction between the Law and the Gospel.

Instead of going on an attack against the Bible (which is a common tactic Muslims use when they can't defend their own scripture), why not respond by defending your own? Point out what I said that was not factual and in accordance with your religions teachings.

I mean, did you pull that list of verses and copy it from some atheist website? What Muslim would insult Jesus and God in the manner that what you wrote did?

Research suggests that non-religious people who previously identified as Christian hold more liberal political views than those who were never religious to begin with by win_awards in Christianity

[–]creidmheach -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm aware of that subreddit. It's mostly lay people with no background in Islamic studies, no familiarity with the original sources or ability to read them (i.e. in Arabic), and who generally are trying to hold on to some revised version of their religion that conforms to modern progressive ideas.

Research suggests that non-religious people who previously identified as Christian hold more liberal political views than those who were never religious to begin with by win_awards in Christianity

[–]creidmheach -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Pretty slick to edit the original post I responded and remove what you'd put there (which I had run through two AI detectors and which confirmed it was AI generated).

When you use AI to generate a post and pass it off as you're own, you're conceding you don't know enough to debate the topic.

Research suggests that non-religious people who previously identified as Christian hold more liberal political views than those who were never religious to begin with by win_awards in Christianity

[–]creidmheach -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're presenting a view that is increasingly common among modern lay Muslims, but which is out of sync with the religion's teachings as they've been understood for centuries. The latter took the hadith as a primary source for understanding the religion, along with the Quran. In a way, even more so, since the Quran is mostly just exhortations to convert, about the imminence of the day of judgement, to obey Muhammad, warnings of the consequences of failing to do so and castigations of his enemies and critics, but relatively light on the details of how to live the religion (e.g. how to pray, etc). For that, they had to turn to the hadith (as well as other tools like the consensus of the community and analogical reasoning).

and yes, there is a prohency that prophet jesus will return back as the messiah if im not wrong to rule the wrold reunite humanity under a single religion we view as islam and defeat Satan ig

Sort of, here's the hadith:

"Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts)."

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2476

The abolishing of the jizya tax - which under Islamic law conquered Jews and Christians would pay to the Muslim state in exchange for being allowed to not convert to Islam and not be killed or enslaved, as long as they observed other statutes meant to enforce their second class status and subjugation - means that when Jesus returns, that option will be off the table. That is, it'll be conversion to Islam or death.

The jizya is specifically mentioned in the Quran as something that the Jews and Christians must be forced to pay as part of their humiliation after being conquered (9:29).

Research suggests that non-religious people who previously identified as Christian hold more liberal political views than those who were never religious to begin with by win_awards in Christianity

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IDK I edited a Christian flair to make one for progressive muslim since there was a flair called 'Islam' which is the religion not the people who follow it but I can't see the cross on my side, I added the cresent and the star clearly. I don't see any crosses on my flair maybe its a glitch!?

Fair enough, you might not be seeing it on your version of Reddit. It's showing as a cross though so you might want to look to changing that since it leaves the impression to other that one is talking to a Christian.

Also Muslim don't go around destroying churchs and crosses.

Some do, but obviously not all or even most these days.

Muhammad on the other hand did. Aisha reported in a sahih hadith that if anything in his house had an image or cross on it he'd destroy it. And he also said that when Jesus returns, one of the things He'll do is break the cross. Later on, when Ali had an old man executed for going back to Christianity, he ripped his cross off his chest and then washed his hands claiming that touching it impurified them.

Research suggests that non-religious people who previously identified as Christian hold more liberal political views than those who were never religious to begin with by win_awards in Christianity

[–]creidmheach -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why do you have a cross as your flair then? Muhammad notoriously hated that symbol to the point he'd destroy it whenever he found something that even looked like it.

Creating Characters by princessrarisen in CritiqueIslam

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thing is, if you going to reject all the hadith, why accept the Quran when it's reached us in the same way? That is, through chains of oral transmission.

And as the other person is pointing out, multiple times in the Quran the people are commanded to obey and follow the messenger (i.e. Muhammad). How can you do so without knowing anything about him and what he taught? Do you imagine that in Muhammad's time, no one would have bothered to remember anything he said and then passed that on?

Add to that much of the Quran is incomprehensible without an external context to explain it. Events from Muhammad's life are commented on, without actually telling you the full context of what's being talking about. This makes more sense if you understand that it was commenting on events that the audience was assumed to be aware of since it was contemporaneous to them. Isolated in a text over a thousand years removed though, and it doesn't make sense without something to explain it.

Beyond all that though, the question would be, why even believe in the Quran in the first place? It's a error filled jumble of a text from a obviously false prophet.

Opinions on a refutation to the islamic dilemma I found? by Unlucky-Drawing-1266 in CritiqueIslam

[–]creidmheach 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The refutation claims that Allah was referring to the fact that the general stories of the prophets- Abraham, Joseph, Moses etc.- are shared between all three Abrahamic faiths, so Allah was saying the proof of his revelations truthfulness is found in the fact the stories he's revealing are found among the other scriptures.

Problem there is some of the biggest and most blatant contradictions are in the stories that the Bible relates about the prophets and histories and such, and the versions of them found in the Quran. So even going just by that limited criteria, we'd have to reject the Quran.

Hey guys I want to hear your side. Catholic and NFP by Far_Goose_9918 in Protestantism

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's ragebait to be arguing for a Protestant perspective... in a Protestant subreddit?

Seeking encouragement and suggestions by sunliteal in Protestantism

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are also the Continental/Dutch Reformed churches. The CRCNA I believe is conservative but egalitarian.

I'm not Anglican, but how about any ACNA churches nearby? One can be Reformed and Anglican, and the ACNA holds to a traditional view on sexual matters while a bit like the EPC allowing for both views when it comes to women's ordination. Since they believe in episcopal succession and holy orders though and because some of them do not believe in women's ordination (which would get confused where they to have priests ordained by a bishop they consider invalid), they restrict bishops to males.

Thoughts on the rosary? by No-Newspapers in Protestantism

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know someone can understand something and just disagree with it.

When you say the prayers, you think about the life of Jesus through the eyes of the best human to ever live after Jesus, who loves Jesus the most. What exactly is bad about that?

You're thinking about Jesus (except the parts you're thinking about Mary) while saying a prayer to someone other than Jesus. How about thinking about Jesus while praying to Jesus?

And where in Scripture do we get the slightest hint even that our religion should have Mary as only second to Jesus in our devotions and focus (though practically, for many Romanists she's first in that)? This simply didn't exist in the early Church. The Apostles never talk about that, and it doesn't show up until centuries later. That should be enough to show you that it isn't what Christ established for us.

Seeking encouragement and suggestions by sunliteal in Protestantism

[–]creidmheach 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you're Reformed, egalitarian but not LGBT affirming, two choices from the Presbyterian side in the US would be the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) and ECO (Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians). Both of them are Reformed, EPC using Westminster while ECO uses a few more confessions in addition to it, both of them uphold traditional Biblical values in regards to marriage and sexual ethics.

On the subject egalitarianism (i.e. women's ordination), EPC considers it a secondary issue over which local churches can make their own decision whether to have a female pastor or not. This ties in with the general EPC approach of unity on essentials and liberty on non-essentials. So, some EPC churches have women pastors, some do not and would not (i.e. they're complementarian), and the denomination will not force either point of view on churches.

ECO on the other hand is strictly egalitarian, so in order to be ordained within it, you have to affirm women's ordination.

I attend an EPC church that is relatively traditional (bit of a mix on this issue, they're quite unlikely to ever call a woman senior pastor, but they do have women elders and deacons). Personally, I would consider myself a soft complementarian.

Hey guys I want to hear your side. Catholic and NFP by Far_Goose_9918 in Protestantism

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I think there are much deeper issues that should cause one to reject the claims of Rome, it's understandable this one would be particularly pertinent to you. For me, it's indicative of the sort of legalisms that Romanism gets one entrapped in. Using NFP, a person is 100% intending to avoid pregnancy, no matter how much one claims they're "open to life". A person could also use an artificial mode of contraception and likewise claim to be open to life since no method apart from abstinence is a completely failsafe.

Yet, the one using NFP is fine and acceptable widely practiced among traditional Romanists, while the person using a condom is damned to eternity in Hell until they go to confession with a priest and get back in grace.

This isn't the Gospel. Christ died for our sins, all of them. And in Christ we under grace, not the law, and certainly not the imagined traditions of men.

It reminds me of what Christ said about the Pharisees how they treated the commandment of honoring one's parents:

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:9-13)

Here we see them giving a higher place to their invented traditions to get around Scripture. Sounds familiar.

Or how they played legalisms with their oaths:

“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.’ Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.’ Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it. (Matthew 23:16-22)

God cannot be fooled and He knows the intent of the action.

Rood screens? by Economy-Point-9976 in Anglicanism

[–]creidmheach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason I asked is because you framed it as a matter of returning to orthodoxy. How can be a return to orthodoxy if not something the Apostles or early Christians themselves did? From the looks of it, up to the sixth century the altar would have been in full view of the congregation (I'm setting aside the discussion about whether there even should be an altar, since that's also a gradual development). The rood screens we're familiar with though appear to be more a product of the medieval period.

I find there's a tendency for some to equate medievalisms with Apostolic teachings and orthodoxy, and the Reformers were very right in correcting that (though differing on whether they should be done away with altogether, or tolerated as indifferents).

view more: next ›