sorry my response took so long... i just couldnt find the right to do it.
my response to the first point is that i had no doubts there were teachings
before there was the autorised versions in the late 4th century...
however, i must ask what about the teachings that existed and said christ
wasn't God? didnt those exist too?
--------------------------
second point, i have no doubt they weren't playing telephone... you just have
to admit some stuff get changed on purpose because some would want the
teachings to go bad and some would do it by mistake... whatever the case...
no teaching could have survived by oral speach.
maybe giving you an alternative example would give you a better look at it:
when muslims deal with something that is supposadly said by prophet
muhamad they go through every person that has narrated it.
meaning: how did the author narrate this saying? person a told person b
who told person c who told person d..... who told person x that he heard the
prophet say: ...
the muslim scholar would have to investigate every person that is in that
chain to make sure he was a trustworthy person, this way and only this way
would we know that what we are taught is what was said by the prophet
himself.
where can we find that in the oral teachings of the early christians? what's to
prove they passed everything right?
what's to prove the documents we have that are supposedly writing by the
disciples of christ are trusyworthy.. do we have a chain of trusty ppl passing
it from one to another... or do we have the surfacing version after the nicaea
convention?
--------------------------
Third point, i must disagree. the christians were divided before nicaea and
were still divided afterwards. proof, the scholars in the 6th century that
believed in christ as a prophet and were waiting for a new prophet to
come... of course you wouldnt hear of those persons in christian teachings
because they didnt believe in christ as a god. the people that were
believers in christ as a prophet and lived to meet mohamad believed in him
too. i can mention waraqa bin nawfal who has studied scripture and was the
only follower of christ in mecca and salman al farisi who spent time as a
servent among few scholars that told him to follow the prophet to come...
i can give you another example, though i wouldn't consider this source
trustworthy but just to make a point: birnaba's gospel which is said to be
written by birnaba, adresses the idea that Jesus is not God but rather a
prophet and it even talks about Mohamad being a prophet. however,
birnaba's gospel isn't considered divine by muslims. but we look at it as a
comfirmation that christ's teaching were lost.
--------------------------
your point on church's authority:
though you make some good point however i must disagree... the only
authority God gives is to his prophets, anyone disapproving the prophet
simply has no authority.
another idea which comes to mind is the authority of the church and its
teachings.
number one, where is its authority now if everything is ruled by seperated
countries?
number two, slavery existed all the way up to the 20th century. which means
that at some point the church had the authority to put an end to it and never
did. did christ teach us to take slaves? if no, how do u explain that the
church never ended slavery. if yes, why has the church stopped teaching us
about it?
number three, if the church had a divine authority, we wouldn't have prophet
mohamad (he came because we needed someone to guide the way)
--------------------------
on a seperate point, you talked about the church existing since a long
consistant period of time... this point is doomed to fall because there are religions that date back to more than the church does...
--------------------------
the idea of a gap between the arians and muslim is a good point.. i add to it the fact that the last scholar, whose servent was salman al farisi(someone i mentioned earlier), told him that he knows no one that believed the same things he does, therefore salman should go and try to find the prophet to come...
why do they differ in teachings... i guess the basic idea which is to believe in God and in christ as a prophet would have been enough to say that they had the same basic ideas.
--------------------------
"we need an inspired, authoritative teacher, which is a living institution,
as opposed to a book or set of writings."
i disagree, when you look at the christians world and teachings you are right.
but look at islam, the prophet mohamad's teaching and the Quran which is the book of God is enough to get you through any choice without commiting mistakes... in short, the prophet pretty much told us about everything we need. the remaining stuff could be figured out by men. it's as simple as what did the porphet had to say about this.
--------------------------
i hope you understand that this, the stuff i write are not to prove myself right or just to argue. i am just pointing out stuff and trying to find the right path. i hope it is the same for you. i hope i give your readers something interesting and helpful
may God lighten your path,
DIGA"
No comments:
Post a Comment