Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Bunch of Bible Questions Part 3

Here are our next round of Bible questions. Today's grouping has to do with the Bible and the writings of other belief systems.

Q- How do we know the bible is the standard (the only authoritative Scripture) and not other writings (e.g., Qur'an, Hindu scriptures, etc.)? How should we look at things like the Book of Mormon that claim to be in alignment with the Bible and subsequent 'revelations from God'?

A- This is a classical postmodern, pluralistic question. We live in a time when the only real sin, according to our culture, is to stake your claim in one Truth. With so many other belief systems out there, especially some major ones like Islam, how can Christianity say that our scripture is the True Scripture?

It basically comes down to the issue that there are major contradictions between all of these holy books. Contradictions cannot be true on major belief points. It's like one person saying that George Washington was the first president of the U.S., and someone else saying that Thomas Jefferson was the first. Somebody's wrong here!

Norman Geisler, a leading Christian apologist and editor of "Who Made God?", writes the following:

"If the Bible declares that Jesus died on the cross and rose bodily from the dead three days later (1 Corinthians 15:1-6), and the Qur'an teaches that he did not (Sura 4:157), both cannot be true on such a crucial teaching. If the writings of Joseph Smith teach that there are many gods (in his Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible as well as the Mormon books of Moses and Abraham), and the bible declares that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4), then both of these writings cannot be true."

Other belief systems may indeed teach things are true (for example, the "Golden Rule" is found in some form in nearly every belief system), but where they differ from the bible, then they are false.

The bottom line is truly found in the fact that the Bible continually gets affirmed in its teachings throughout history, that it does indeed transform people's lives, and that it implores people to live selfless lives of love, not seeking their own glory, but only the glory of God.

Q- How can I help my friends (who are Jehovah's Witnesses) to understand that Jesus is God? They have a hard time understanding that Jesus can be the "Son of God" and God at the same time.

A- This isn't so much a bible question, but an important one about how we help build bridges with people of other belief systems. Honestly, trying to understand the Trinity is like a high school guy trying to understand why girls go to the bathroom in packs. Thinking on it too much makes your brain hurt!

Jesus said that he was God (John 10:30) and his claim to be God was the blasphemy that we was accused of by the Jewish High Priest in Matthew 27:63-65. Also, Jesus made many "I am" statements about himself (John 8:58) that equated himself with God. Jesus also forgave sins (Mark 2), something reserved for God. Jesus also allowed his disciples to worship him as God (John 20:28; Matthew 16:15-17).

The great theologian and church father Augustine makes the argument that for God to be perfect, he has to exist in community. Since God is love (1 John 4), and love has to be shared; it is an action. And since God is self-sufficient, he must be able to share that love within Himself. Therefore, God must exist in community so he can express the love that is inherent to Him. Again, Norman Geisler say that with love, there must be a love (God the Father), and loved one (God the Son), and a spirit of love (God the Holy Spirit).

The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not separate entities...they are three persons yet one essence. Visually, you can think of God like a triangle - three distinct corners, but one shape. You can also picture God mathmatically in the equation: 1x1x1=1 (as opposed to 1+1+1=3; this would be polytheism). But in the end, every illustration breaks down; for this is one of the greatest mysteries of our faith.

3 comments:

Daniel said...

The fact that the Bible and Qur'an do not agree on what Jesus did does not prove the Bible. External inconsistencies between the 2 sacred books only shows that the books are not equal.

You then have 3 choices:
1. Bible is true, Qur'an is false
2. Bible is false, Qur'an is true
3. Bible is false, Qur'an is false

So, how do I choose the true book?
I think this is the point that you look for internal inconsistencies. Does the beginning of the Bible (Genesis) agree with the end (Revelation)? I would say yes. For one thing, the head of the serpent is bruised by Him (Gen 3:15 cf Rev 20:7-10). I submit that for all the thousands of words in the Bible, there is not one inconsistency.

How does the Qur'an hold up? I feel like the guy that says the Bible is full of errors while never having read it, but I submit that the Qur'an is riddled with errors. First, in one breath it commands love for the poor and evangelism of the nonbelievers, while in the next it calls for execution of the "infidels." More importantly we discover that the god of the Qur'an, Allah, can lie and deceive. Also see: Quran 86:6 (http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/quran.htm) also found this link:http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm.

We are now left with 2 choices
1. Bible is true, Qur'an is false
3. Bible is false, Qur'an is false

In my opinion the Bible’s lack of internal inconsistencies lends a whole lot of credence to it’s claim that it is the word of God. Therefore if we say that the Bible is the word of God, we must then say that the Bible is completely true since God is true and cannot lie, and if the Bible is true it is the only authority in our life.

Therefore, our choices are now:
1. Bible is true, All other sacred scripture are false

Daniel

Ryan said...

Great words & research Daniel. My initial response was to just set the stage to show that there cannot be 2 conflicting "truths".

Ryan

Anonymous said...

This whole "John the Baptizer" thing is creeping me out. It's "Baptist." The suffix "ist" means a person who does or is interested in the noun-root it's attached to. I really don't think anyone is going to think ol' John was a messenger from the Southern Baptist Convention is we properly call him "the Baptist." Tampering with the words only leads to confusion. If you call a social-ist a social-izer, or a dramatist a drama-tizer, it changes the meaning and sounds, franky, odd. FWIW

-Grumpy old Baptist