Salaamun Alaykum
I was going through answering-christianity.com and answering-islam.org
And suprisingly, answering-islam.org has been refuted easily by Muslims (Or at least according to me), however, theres this one argument answering-islam.org gives which kind of needs to be refuted, so I would like it if someone would go through this link and reply to me.The Qur’an Attacks … Christianity?
Re: [Muslims] Can anyone refute this argument by Sam Shouman (A Christian Missionary)
It is the game they play with words. They already very well know the answers , they are paid to put doubts in the minds of their own followers and others.
It is all just pointless and unfruitful rambling for the sake of argument. I do not feel any need to put my time and energy to counter these pointless ramblings.
I am sure someone from answering-christianity.org must have refuted this or is in the process of doing so. Since you are a already Muslim you can put your time in some more productive activity than replying to this pointless article.
Re: [Muslims] Can anyone refute this argument by Sam Shouman (A Christian Missionary)
i stopped reading after the first few, no refutation required
Re: [Muslims] Can anyone refute this argument by Sam Shouman (A Christian Missionary)
Peace my21098
I actually agree more with what this author has said than what the Christian creed/ doctrine say … I mean in his attempt to falsify the Qur’an he is arriving at a position that aligns more closely with Islam … If Saint Thomas Acquinas saw this article written by him he would be turning in his grave …
Look:
Errors
There were, however, certain heretics who erred in this belief. Photinus, for instance, believed that Christ is not the Son of God but a good man who, by a good life and by doing the will of God, merited to be called the son of God by adoption; and so Christ who lived a good life and did the will of God merited to be called the son of God. Moreover, this error would not have Christ living before the Blessed Virgin, but would have Him begin to exist only at His conception. Accordingly, there are here two errors: the first, that Christ is not the true Son of God according to His nature; and the second, that Christ in His entire being began to exist in time. Our faith, however, holds that He is the Son of God in His nature, and that he is from all eternity. Now, we have definite authority against these errors in the Holy Scriptures, Against the first error it is said that Christ is not only the Son, but also the only-begotten Son of the Father: “The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him:” [Jn 1:18]. And again the second error it is said: “Before Abraham was made, I AM” [Jn 8:58]. It is evident that Abraham lived before the Blessed Virgin. And what the Fathers added to the other [Nicene] Creed, namely, “the only-begotten Son of God,” is against the first error; and “born of the Father before all ages” is against the second error.
Sabellius said that Christ indeed was before the Blessed Virgin, but he held that the Father Himself became incarnate and, therefore, the Father and the Son is the same Person. This is an error because it takes away the Trinity of Persons in God, and against it is this authority: “I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me” [Jn 8:16]. It is clear that one cannot be sent from himself. Sabellius errs therefore, and in the [Nicene] Creed of the Fathers it is said: “God of God; Light of Light,” that is, we are to believe in God the Son from God the Father, and the Son who is Light from the Father who is Light.
Arius, although he would say that Christ was before the Blessed Virgin and that the Person of the Father is other than the Person of the Son, nevertheless made a three-fold attribution to Christ: (1) that the Son of God was a creature; (2) that He is not from eternity, but was formed the noblest of all creatures in time by God; (3) that God the Son is not of one nature with God the Father, and therefore that He was not true God. But this too is erroneous and contrary to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. It is written: “I and the Father are one” [Jn 10:30]. That is, in nature; and therefore, just as the Father always existed, so also the Son; and just as the Father is true God, so also is the Son. That Christ is a creature, as said by Arius, is contradicted in the “Symbol” by the Fathers: “True God of true God;” and the assertion that Christ is not from eternity but in time is also contrary to the [Nicene] Creed: “Begotten not made;” and finally, that Christ is not of the same substance as the Father is denied by the [Nicene] Creed: “Consubstantial with the Father.”
The truth
It is, therefore, clear we must believe that Christ is the Only-begotten of God, and the true Son of God, who always was with the Father, and that there is one Person of the Son and another of the Father who have the same divine nature. All this we believe now through faith, but we shall know it with a perfect vision in the life eternal. Hence, we shall now speak somewhat of this for our own edification.
It is obvious here that despite what the article writer says about “begotten” the central belief of Christianity is clear on this matter … As a Muslim I only hope and pray that other Christians start to interpret the Bible through the eyes of this author who unwittingly is reinterpreting the nature of Jesus on behalf of the Christians to the extent that it is no longer necessary to infer that God and Jesus are from the same nature … Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God
In terms of refuting him … well he is obviously fixated in trying to negate the Qur’an, The responses can each be refuted on the basis of logical fallacies - for example he argues just because he has poor diction regarding the word “consort” therefore it cannot be a Christian belief - but neither does logic require us to believe that one mustknow the meaning for a term in order for it to be in our books of belief nor is this something that the Qur’an is saying is part of Christian belief anyway … rather this is an appeal to reason … that “How dare they appoint God a son when they dare not appoint God a spouse” … And so on … The article is child’s play … A fuller response … I don’t think it is needed, because the article is so dumb by conflicting with the Qur’an attempting to say “no we Christians don’t believe that, we believe this” he is ending up making his own interpretation which itself is heretical according to the Christian orthodoxy … But I have sent material to br. Osama Abdullah in the past … on various issues as have others I’m sure …
Re: [Muslims] Can anyone refute this argument by Sam Shouman (A Christian Missionary)
Salaam To all of you
Thank you all for taking your time and replying
Re: [Muslims] Can anyone refute this argument by Sam Shouman (A Christian Missionary)
Peace my21098,
At my end, this site is blocked b'coz of vilolating regulations and laws of local Govt.
Re: [Muslims] Can anyone refute this argument by Sam Shouman (A Christian Missionary)
In the old testement, God is referred to as 'father'. And the use of the term is no exlcusive to Jesus but the other Prophets such as John, Jacub, and Moses address God in a similar manner. Eventhough a Christian of today will tell you that this term is used in a figurative way but back in the days of the Prophet of Islam the Christians living in the area might have a different interpretion of the term 'father' (perhaps closer to how the Catholics of today understand it). Besides Prophet of Islam would have been questioned on these verses by the Christians that time who often visited him such as the delegation of Najran. History books record lengthy discussions/debates between the Prophet of Islam and the Christian scholars such as in the event of Mubahila.