On Monday night I went along to “The Big Trinity Debate” at Trinity Road Chapel… bit of a spur of the moment decision, but having heard Jay Smith speaking at Cornhill that afternoon, it sounded like a fun evening!

The debate was between James White (see his review) of Alpha & Omega Ministries and Abdullah al Andalusi.

I’ve spent much time recently thinking about debates with Christians vs. Atheists… so refreshing to hear a debate between two Theists, and on a topic at the core of my Christian beliefs.

The debate had two opening arguments, some cross-examination, some rebuttals and then a break, after which there was a Q&A. Sadly I had to leave at the break!

There was a good turn out and good debate, with both sides putting forward fairly sensible arguments. But I left feeling short changed with the Islamic scholar for three reasons:

1. He failed to engage with the Christian understanding of the Trinity, James White noted that the Qu’ran also misunderstands the Trinity. This came about because he did not accept James White’s opening statements about the difference between the nature and personhood of God.
2. He began his opening statement with fallacious attacks on the reliability of the New Testament, not the issue at hand, thankfully James White enlightened him and gifted him with a translation of the Bible which includes the manusrcipt source of every text.
3. He didn’t give any positive reasons, based on the Qu’ran why anyone should believe in Islam…?

What do you think? You can listen to the debate audio here…

So I recently watched Collision  (a must watch) and also an interview on a tv show about the Bible in the UK.

His response to the question – “Where does morality come from?” – is to say that morality is inate in all humans.

Does anyone else see the massive hole in this point of view if you also ascribe to an atheistic evolutionary worldview??

I love Hitchens rhetoric, but his arguments are full of inconsistencies.

Recently at Cornhill we had Mark Meynell from All Souls lead some sessions on Postmodernism. Here’s a few little quotes or references which I liked…

“My secret is that I need God–that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem to be capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.”

Douglas Coupland  -  Life After God

“Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives.”

Lyotard  -  The Postmodern Condition

The Panopticon

A heart that’s full up like a landfill,
a job that slowly kills you,
bruises that won’t heal.
You look so tired-unhappy,
bring down the government,
they don’t, they don’t speak for us.
I’ll take a quiet life,
a handshake of carbon monoxide…

Radiohead  -  No Surprises

So, at Cornhill today we were thinking about Cross-Cultural Mission… and I should say I haven’t had a chance to reference in a Qu’ran

One of the things that came up in passing was about Final Judgement…

Isa (Jesus) according to Islam is the one who will execute final judgement. For the Muslim, as I understand (I may well be wrong), they hope (uncertain hope) that Muhammed will intercede, will give a good word to Isa.

So the question is quite simple…

Why follow the mediator (Muhammed), when you can be friends with the judge himself (Jesus)?

…it seems like a more certain way to approach final judgement?

Muslims claim that the Bible in its present form has been corrupted. While Muslims accept the truth of the Bible – the Injil, which refers to the New Testament (Gospel), they believe that the truth of this revelation has been lost.

But the question is… When was the Bible corrupted?

Was it corrupted before Muhammed?

Well this seems unlikely given what the Qu’ran says about the Bible… Sura 4:136 says that Muslims are to believe in God, in the Qu’ran and in the Bible (“the scripture He has revealed before”). Why would the Qu’ran call Muslims to believe a corrupt document?

Or, was it corrupted after Muhammed?

It seems, given the Qu’ran’s endorsement of the Bible that it must have been corrupted after Muhammed’s revelation. Muhammed died in AD 632. But we have lots of manuscripts before that date… check out the Codex Sinaiticus a complete manuscript of the Bible, dated to the fourth century.

So… if the Bible was corrupted, when was it corrupted?