Burden of Proof

Apollos wrote: I have tried to address a specific topic in this post. I realize some tangents will arise but it seems that every post ends up with people wanting to attack the Bible being God�s Word. I and other Christians are trying not to show our frustration and offense in having the Scripture we believe in being condemned this way � but it is hard to do so when people deliberately change the topic back to this again and again. If Muslims do not accept the burden of proof in showing that Islam is true, please just say so and we will move on to another topic. If there is an answer from Muslims on the burden of proof, please present it.

I don't understand, Apollos.  It seems to me that anyone making magical claims ought to be prepared to prove them.  Why do you feel that Muslims have a burden of proof, but not Christians?

I have tried to address a specific topic in this post. I realize some tangents will arise but it seems that every post ends up with people wanting to attack the Bible being God�s Word. I and other Christians are trying not to show our frustration and offense in having the Scripture we believe in being condemned this way � but it is hard to do so when people deliberately change the topic back to this again and again. If Muslims do not accept the burden of proof in showing that Islam is true, please just say so and we will move on to another topic. If there is an answer from Muslims on the burden of proof, please present it.

Apollos

That is an interesting (opening) post, Apollos,

You wrote:  �One distinction in this succession is that Jesus recognized the burden of proof that was required to justify the new �truths� He was revealing. Others have simply claimed that they had a new revelation without accepting the burden of proof.�

Are you including Muhammad among these others?  If so, I disagree with his being included.  He (the Quran) often appeals to proofs.  Here is a single, though probably too controversial example:

�If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.  Nor be of those who reject the signs of Allah, or thou shalt be of those who perish.  Those against whom the word of thy Lord hath been verified would not believe �even if every Sign was brought unto them- until they see (for themselves) the penalty grievous.�  (Quran 10:94-97)

For my purposes thus far, it doesn�t matter how those who had been reading the Book from before him responded, the fact is, an appeal to them was here made, or recommended.

You wrote:  �Another distinction with Jesus is that He did not challenge what the Bible said. He claimed to fulfill it in fact and said that God�s Word (the Tanach or Old Testament) would not pass away until all be fulfilled. He only had two areas where His teaching actually differed ��

I hope you don�t mind my abbreviating your statements.  This one impresses me as understated.  Whether one calls it �abolished,� �fulfilled,� or paradoxically abolished by way of fulfillment, the fact remains that, according to the writer of Acts (St. Luke), one of the so-called �false� witnesses who testified before the Sanhedrin claimed that both St. Stephen and Jesus himself had spoken against the temple and against the law.  �For we have heard him [St. Stephen] say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place [temple] and change the customs Moses handed down to us.� (Acts 6:12-14)

Quite apart from the rather tricky issue of whether this witness was true or false, a question to my mind arises: did Jesus in fact change the customs that Moses handed down to them?   I think he did.  I think one of the best proofs of that is New Testament Christianity itself (in contradistinction to Judaism, which for the most part disregards Jesus).  Consider, among other things, dietary laws, though you have already adequately explained why you think Jesus had the authority to change them.

You wrote:  �He only had two areas where His teaching actually differed from what the average Jew believed at that time and He told His disciples to listen to what the Priests and Scribes said � but not follow their hypocritical practices.�

He is also said to have interrupted the madding throng from enacting the very penalty prescribed by God and Moses in the case of the woman taken in adultery and, in the process, further paved the way toward his own martyrdom (John 8:7).  I would consider this more than a slight disagreement with Moses and his designates.  Wouldn�t you?

To keep things manageably brief, I will close for now.  (Were there some specific questions you wanted me to answer?  If so, please rephrase and present them.  Except, in this case, at the beginning, I haven�t known quite where to start.)

Best regards,