Who is the founder of Christianity?

[Grace Seeker]

This forum likes to wrestle with this question, but usually does so tied up in other threads. I thought that maybe it would be good to have a dedicated thread to this topic.

So, here is the question: Who is the founder of Christianity?


Now, because some will come and try to change the nature of the question, some defintion to what I mean by the terms I used, and anticipate others using.



Christianity -- The historic Christian faith as found in the teachings of the New Testament and further articulated by the ecumenical councils of the early church at Jerusalem, Nice, Ephesus, Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon.

Founder -- source of the basic ideas and concepts that became core of the teachings that are eventually expressed as the Christian faith.

Gospel -- The teaching with regard to Jesus as both the Christ and Son of God who died on the cross for the redemption of humanity and was resurrected from the grave to new life and who now reigns alongside the Father.


Injil -- The teachings that Muslims believe were at the core of Jesus' message and which are fully in harmony with the teachings of Muhammad.


Please make every effort to distinguish between the terms Injil and Gospel and not use them interchangably.

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i voted for Paul as per: the Christian faith as found in the teachings of the New Testament and further articulated by the ecumenical councils of the early church at Jerusalem, Nice, Ephesus, Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. i left out "historic" because the church that Jesus/Isa Alaihe Salaam started would have been a lot closer to Judaism.

by putting "historic" instead of just the rest, you kind of skew your poll a bit in your favor. historically, it's what it BECAME, but it's NOT what it started out as. if you study Judaism at all, you'ld see that there is NO WAY that the Messiah would teach any but True Monotheism; there'd be no tri-unes or trinities. and of course, THAT would have been the Injeel, which i'm sure that you'll have none of. i reckon it's too hard for some to have god that they can't see, so they put one in human form [maybe golden calves would be too obvious! ].

:w:

[syilla]

Wow...mashaAllah good question.

In Islam, of course we don't believe the founder is jesus.

i voted Paul too :)

[Pygoscelis]

I voted "unknown early church leaders" but this definition

Founder -- source of the basic ideas and concepts that became core of the teachings that are eventually expressed as the Christian faith.

makes me think "Egyptians", "Babylonians", and "Summerians" are the right answers. The vast majoirty of the bible is recycled from earlier mythology.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Isambard]

I voted "unknown early church leaders" but this definition



makes me think "Egyptians", "Babylonians", and "Summerians" are the right answers. The vast majoirty of the bible is recycled from earlier mythology.

Id agree with unknown early church leaders, but lean toward greek and roman mythology and philosophy as well as Jewish apocalypticism.

[snakelegs]

voted paul and unknown early church leaders.

[Trumble]

Taking careful note of your definition of 'founder', it would have to be "don't like any of the options". A combination of those "unknown early church leaders" and Jesus himself, probably, the former building on the teachings of the latter both in terms of doctrine and myth.

[Talha777]

Christianity was basically founded by Paul. Its based on most of his ideas. His theological speculations in his various letters to the churches in modern day Turkey is the base of christianity. The teachings of Jesus himself are considered secondary.

In a way christianity was even founded by satan.

[north_malaysian]

Paul.

[ahsan28]

Paul.

[Fishman]

:sl:
The various Church leaders who solidified Christian beliefs into a proper creed.
:w:

[Amadeus85]

God.

[MustafaMc]

If one reads the 1st two chapters of Galatians with an open mind, he would see that Paul is the founder of Christianity as a Gentile religion. The disciples of Jesus were Jews and they taught the following of the Judaic law albeit with an "enlightened" perspective of forgiveness, love and mercy as taught by Jesus.

Paul clearly states that he and Barnabas were sent to the Gentiles while Peter was the apostle to the Jew. Galatians 2:7-9 ...but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gentile), even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision (Jew) (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;

Latter on Paul illustrates the conflict that he had with the disciples about applying the Judaic law to the Gentiles. Paul even differed with Barnabas who traveled extensively with him. Paul and Barnabas eventually "parted ways". Galatians 2:11-13 But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.

Paul clearly states that what he preached was received by direct revelation from God after Jesus' accension - not from Jesus' disciples. We also see that those of reputation (disciples of Jesus) taught him nothing. Galatians 1:15-17 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, [even] from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I (Paul) conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter), and tarried with him fifteen days. and Galatians 2:6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:

There were clearly competing "gospels" during the first century and Paul resisted those other than what he preached vehemently. We see from later passages in Galatians that these other gospels must have included the need for circumcision and by extension following the Judaic law. Galatians 1:6-12 I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another [gospel] only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ (as taught by Paul). But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema (cursed by ecclesiastical authority). As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but [it came to me] through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Again, we see that the gospel that Paul preached was not taught to him by men (Jesus' disciples), but rather he claims, in this case, to have gotten it by direct revelation from Jesus after his accension to Heaven.

The "gospel" as we know it today originated with Paul as defined in I Corinthians 15:1-4 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures. This "gospel" of salvation is not defined by any other than Paul.

[MartyrX]

If Christianity was solely based on the Teachings of Jesus than I'd say him, but from my studies I'd have to point towards the church that twisted The New Testament into their own words.

[Grace Seeker]

I voted "unknown early church leaders" but this definition



makes me think "Egyptians", "Babylonians", and "Summerians" are the right answers. The vast majoirty of the bible is recycled from earlier mythology.

You had a "none of the above" option available to you; it was your choice not to use it.

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i voted for Paul as per: the Christian faith as found in the teachings of the New Testament and further articulated by the ecumenical councils of the early church at Jerusalem, Nice, Ephesus, Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. i left out "historic" because the church that Jesus/Isa Alaihe Salaam started would have been a lot closer to Judaism.

by putting "historic" instead of just the rest, you kind of skew your poll a bit in your favor. historically, it's what it BECAME, but it's NOT what it started out as. if you study Judaism at all, you'ld see that there is NO WAY that the Messiah would teach any but True Monotheism; there'd be no tri-unes or trinities. and of course, THAT would have been the Injeel, which i'm sure that you'll have none of. i reckon it's too hard for some to have god that they can't see, so they put one in human form [maybe golden calves would be too obvious! ].

:w:

Yep, I put "historic" because I want to discuss the Chrsitianity that we have inherited and see practiced today, not some idea of a Chrsitainity that people (even though of good will and attempted research) can at best only speculate about as once was or might have been.

[BlackMamba]

Well definitely not Jesus. He never preached that he was part of a trinity. That part of Christianity was made later.

[MustafaMc]

The Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity
by Lewis Loflin

Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever, other than perhaps the disputed Gnostic Gospels.

While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of the faith, Paul's role in defining Christianity can't be ignored. "Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time." The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism. His worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion. The Church in its struggles with both Marcion and other fellow Gnostics was forced to define itself and launch an internal war to silence opponents.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

[Keltoi]

I answer God, simply because that is the point of having faith to begin with.

As for whether Paul had a major impact on Christianity, I would say absolutely. Especially in the realm of Gentile conversions. I think many people are a little confused about the role of Mosaic Law in Christianity, but that is beside the point. Paul is responsible for guiding Christianity to be a more universal faith, but the foundational doctrine of Christianity was well in place before the missions to Corinth and Rome.

[glo]

This forum likes to wrestle with this question, but usually does so tied up in other threads. I thought that maybe it would be good to have a dedicated thread to this topic.

So, here is the question: Who is the founder of Christianity?

Greeting, Grace Seeker

I hope your Christmas was a peaceful and joyful one.

We have all been quite unwell in my house, and with everybody feeling poorly and cranky, we've had ample opportunity to practice being patient and gracious with each other! :D

As for this thread, I love it! And here I thought I was the one asking the questions ... :giggling:
I have had time to ponder this, and I am itching to write down my own thoughts ... but I will need a bit more time to put my thoughts into writing.

Peace

[glo]

So, here is the question: Who is the founder of Christianity?

My first instinct was to answer 'God' - and that is what I voted.

Then I looked at the other options and read the replies of others, and it got me to wonder ...

After much pondering, here are my further toughts:

Who is the founder of Christianity?

1. The answer is God.
Throughout the biblical history God made different convenants with his people.
The message was always the same - to seek him, to love him, to obey him.
The final convenant through Jesus Christ is foretold in many places in the OT through different prophets. And it is evident that Jesus is not just another prophet:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.
(Isaiah (:7-8)

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
[...]
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors
(Isaiah 53: 5-6;12

2. The answer is Jesus.
He came to teach us through his word and his example, but also to fulfill the covenant:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.(John 3:16)

In his own words:

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one.
(John 10:27-29)

Before his death:

"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!"

Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

Jesus said, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
(John 12:27-33)

After his resurrection:

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
(John 20:24-29)

3. Following Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension it was left to his followers to put Jesus' teachings and instructions into practice. Those followers were his disciples, Paul, the early church leaders ... they did so by the power and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


So, in answer to the original question:
God the Father ordained the New Covenant.
God the Son fulfilled it.
God the Holy Spirit implemented it.

Father + Son + Holy Spirit = GOD


Peace

[snakelegs]

do you think jesus intended to found a religion?

[Grace Seeker]

Quite an impressive answer, glo. I hadn't thought that deeply. In fact, I haven't even voted myself yet. But I'm leaning toward Peter and the other disciples.

I think that Paul was the great "expander" of Christianity, but certainly not its founder. What would later be called Christianity already existed before Paul became a follower of the Way himself. You can't call someone a founder who joins an already existing movement. (e.g., You never hear a Muslim refer to Muhammad as the founder of Islam, for Muslims believe that all the prophets before Muhammad were also followers of Islam, hence he can't be Islam's founder.)

I think that Christianity is "about" Jesus, but I don't think of him as its "founder".

Rather it was Peter, John, Philip, and the others who were among the first articulators of a message about Jesus as:

1. the Christ (i.e. Messiah, God's anointed) -- Acts 2:36
2. the Son of God (though, if we were to believe the Gospel accounts, Jesus had used this term self-descriptively, or at least he was accused of doing so) -- Acts 7:56 & John 20:31
3. the Lord -- Acts 2:36 & Acts 4:33
4. called for people to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins" -- Acts 2:38
5. declare that salvation is found in Jesus -- Acts 4:12
6. equate Jesus with God (though again, we see Jesus accept worship of himself by others) -- note that the phrase "the Lord" is used both for Jesus and God but for no one else -- Acts 2:36 & 39 and Acts 10:36; also Jesus is declared to be the "author of life" (something that only God can actually create) -- Acts 3:15
7. preach the message of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection as the core of the teachings regarding Jesus, rather than Jesus' own stories about the kingdom of God -- Acts 2:23-24, Acts 2:32, Acts 2:36, Acts 3:13-15, Acts 4:2, Acts 4:10, Acts 4:33, Acts 7:52-56, Acts 8:32-35
8. took the message to others besides Jews -- Acts 8:14 & 25, Acts 8:27-29, Acts 8:40 (Caeserea was a Roman village), Acts 10:22-48, Acts 11:17-18, Acts 11:20-23
9. the key to being considered part of the community that becomes known as Christians is NOT in one's ethnicity, one's nationality, following the Jewish law, identifying marks like circumcision, rituals or mores like saying certain prayers or not eating certain foods nor any other particular behavior; RATHER, the key to being part of the community was belief/faith in Jesus -- Acts 1:15, 2:44, 4:32, and 5:12 (note the descriptive term for the community is "believers"); Acts 4:4 (the expected response to the message is belief); Acts 3:16 (faith is what changes people); Acts 6:7 (even Jewish priests become part of the community based on their faith in Jesus), and Acts 11:21 (believing is the equivalent of "turning to the Lord").
10. Non-Pauline scripture such as Matthew and John, even non-canonical Christian literature of the era such as the didache has the same message that people attribute to Paul. Works (such as the Apocalypse of Peter) coming out of Alexandrian Christian communities that Paul never visited still focus on all the key message being Jesus' death and resurrection, that he is the Son of God, and that one has salvation and forgiveness of sins through belief in Jesus.

I think Paul received this same message (be it directly from revelation or from conversation with the apostles is irrelevant) and took it to the Gentiles under the direction of God (Acts 13:2-3). Thus the message was already formed and articulated before Paul begins to promote it. He then becomes its biggest ambassador, but it is re-writing history to say he created it.

[Grace Seeker]

Wow...mashaAllah good question.

In Islam, of course we don't believe the founder is jesus.

i voted Paul too :)

But why or why not? Mustafa offered some reasons. It sounds more like you are just offering the party line without doing any critical thinking for yourself: "in Islam we...".

[Grace Seeker]

Christianity was basically founded by Paul. Its based on most of his ideas. His theological speculations in his various letters to the churches in modern day Turkey is the base of christianity. The teachings of Jesus himself are considered secondary.

In a way christianity was even founded by satan.

But how about my suggestion that these views that Paul wrote about had already been expressed by others prior to him even becoming a Christian?

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:
The various Church leaders who solidified Christian beliefs into a proper creed.
:w:

By that do you mean that Christianity in its present form didn't really exist until the creeds were developed and that it was this codification of the beliefs of the earlier Christians that produced the "historic Christian faith"? Or do you mean that it created wholly as a work of fiction by this people, out of whole cloth?

[Grace Seeker]

If one reads the 1st two chapters of Galatians with an open mind, he would see that Paul is the founder of Christianity as a Gentile religion. The disciples of Jesus were Jews and they taught the following of the Judaic law albeit with an "enlightened" perspective of forgiveness, love and mercy as taught by Jesus.

Paul clearly states that he and Barnabas were sent to the Gentiles while Peter was the apostle to the Jew. Galatians 2:7-9 ...but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gentile), even as Peter with [the gospel] of the circumcision (Jew) (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;

Doesn't this make those who sent them to be the "founders", and Paul and Barnabas merely the messengers of an already established belief system?

Latter on Paul illustrates the conflict that he had with the disciples about applying the Judaic law to the Gentiles. Paul even differed with Barnabas who traveled extensively with him. Paul and Barnabas eventually "parted ways". Galatians 2:11-13 But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.

If Paul had to return to present his case to others, where they not in some sense "over" him or at least seen as having an authority which even Paul had to acknowledge or appeal to for his own authority. In other words, though Paul had a great deal of influence and even autonomy, he was still accountable to others.

[LEFT]There were clearly competing "gospels" during the first century and Paul resisted those other than what he preached vehemently. We see from later passages in Galatians that these other gospels must have included the need for circumcision and by extension following the Judaic law.

But it was not Paul who uniquely resisted those others, so did Peter (see Acts 11), James ("It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." Acts 15:19), and John in his letter (1 John) speaks in the same way that Paul does about preserving the message and not adapting it to others'.

Again, we see that the gospel that Paul preached was not taught to him by men (Jesus' disciples), but rather he claims, in this case, to have gotten it by direct revelation from Jesus after his accension to Heaven.

The "gospel" as we know it today originated with Paul as defined in I Corinthians 15:1-4 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures. This "gospel" of salvation is not defined by any other than Paul.

How can you say that this is gospel is not defined by any other than Paul? That gospel is declared in nearly every book of the New Testament (and a few non-canonical books as well). In receiving it, what difference does it make whether Paul received it by revelation or conversation. If Jesus shared with Paul what the disciples experienced by living it, they still have the same message to share, and did in fact pass along the same message, that's why we have books called the "Gospel according to ________" that tell these same messages about Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. That's what the first half of the book of Acts is filled with, others declaring the same story that Paul would later write to the churches. The message was not something Paul invented, it was already being proclaimed by Peter and others even before it was revealed to Paul.

[ranma1/2]

who was the founder? it depends on which sect your talking about.

[Grace Seeker]

who was the founder? it depends on which sect your talking about.

I think I clarified that in the first post. But some examples:

Among the included list would be: Roman Catholic (Latin Rite), Eastern Rite Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, Coptic, Anglicans, and Protestant groups such as Lutherans, Reformed Churches, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Mennonites, Amish, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, Church of God (Anderson), Pentecostals, Charismatics, Holiness, Quakers, and others just generically known as non-denominational Christian churches, even Seventh-Day Adventists.

Among those I was not referring to would be: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientist, the Way International, Worldwide Chuch of God, nor Unitarians.

[glo]

do you think jesus intended to found a religion?

No, I think he came to reconcile people with God.

I know some Christians who will say that true Christianity is not a 'religion' at all. Religion per se is a man-made construct, and hence in itself not divine. Humans can only construct theological theories and rituals to the best of their human ability. It will always have a human element, no matter how well intended.
Those Christians will say that true Christianity is 'being in relationship with God through Jesus Christ'.
Following religious patterns and rituals may help us to focus on that, but there is also the risk that it could distract us and become something to replace our relationship with God (an idol, if you like ...)

Peace :)

[glo]

Rather it was Peter, John, Philip, and the others who were among the first articulators of a message about Jesus as:

1. the Christ (i.e. Messiah, God's anointed) -- Acts 2:36
2. the Son of God (though, if we were to believe the Gospel accounts, Jesus had used this term self-descriptively, or at least he was accused of doing so) -- Acts 7:56 & John 20:31
3. the Lord -- Acts 2:36 & Acts 4:33
4. called for people to be baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins" -- Acts 2:38
5. declare that salvation is found in Jesus -- Acts 4:12
6. equate Jesus with God (though again, we see Jesus accept worship of himself by others) -- note that the phrase "the Lord" is used both for Jesus and God but for no one else -- Acts 2:36 & 39 and Acts 10:36; also Jesus is declared to be the "author of life" (something that only God can actually create) -- Acts 3:15
7. preach the message of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection as the core of the teachings regarding Jesus, rather than Jesus' own stories about the kingdom of God -- Acts 2:23-24, Acts 2:32, Acts 2:36, Acts 3:13-15, Acts 4:2, Acts 4:10, Acts 4:33, Acts 7:52-56, Acts 8:32-35
8. took the message to others besides Jews -- Acts 8:14 & 25, Acts 8:27-29, Acts 8:40 (Caeserea was a Roman village), Acts 10:22-48, Acts 11:17-18, Acts 11:20-23
9. the key to being considered part of the community that becomes known as Christians is NOT in one's ethnicity, one's nationality, following the Jewish law, identifying marks like circumcision, rituals or mores like saying certain prayers or not eating certain foods nor any other particular behavior; RATHER, the key to being part of the community was belief/faith in Jesus -- Acts 1:15, 2:44, 4:32, and 5:12 (note the descriptive term for the community is "believers"); Acts 4:4 (the expected response to the message is belief); Acts 3:16 (faith is what changes people); Acts 6:7 (even Jewish priests become part of the community based on their faith in Jesus), and Acts 11:21 (believing is the equivalent of "turning to the Lord").
10. Non-Pauline scripture such as Matthew and John, even non-canonical Christian literature of the era such as the didache has the same message that people attribute to Paul. Works (such as the Apocalypse of Peter) coming out of Alexandrian Christian communities that Paul never visited still focus on all the key message being Jesus' death and resurrection, that he is the Son of God, and that one has salvation and forgiveness of sins through belief in Jesus.

Hi Grace Seeker

I was wondering how many (or how few) actual instructions Jesus left for his followers.

I mean, in contrast to Islam, which is so very descriptive and prescriptive in how and when to pray.

The only ones I can think of are:
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
(Luke 22:19)
and
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5)

Can you think of any others?
And why do you think Jesus left so few instructions?

[snakelegs]

No, I think he came to reconcile people with God.

I know some Christians who will say that true Christianity is not a 'religion' at all. Religion per se is a man-made construct, and hence in itself not divine. Humans can only construct theological theories and rituals to the best of their human ability. It will always have a human element, no matter how well intended.
Those Christians will say that true Christianity is 'being in relationship with God through Jesus Christ'.
Following religious patterns and rituals may help us to focus on that, but there is also the risk that it could distract us and become something to replace our relationship with God (an idol, if you like ...)

Peace :)

interesting take. as you know, i take a rather dim view of religion and this is one of the reasons why.

i don't understand what this means:

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5)

[caroline]

[LEFT]If one reads the 1st two chapters of Galatians with an open mind,

Ay, there's the rub. As my husband and I are finding out, reading any of the New Testament with an open mind is very difficult to do when you have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that the words mean something different than they say. I am actually starting to believe that this would be impossible without the help of the One True God, Allah.

I voted Paul because Jesus did not claim to be God and he did not tell us to worship him as God. As a matter of fact, in Matthew 17, he makes it clear that he is NOT equal to God:

Mathew 17:16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

And in answer to snakelegs, No I do not think he intended to found a religion. He was not a religious person and he had some pretty frank things to say to those who were... called them vipers and things.

:omg: oops -- no offense!

[caroline]

i don't understand what this means:

I think it means you not only have to be born of the water (amniotic fluid, physical birth) but you also have to have a birth of the spirit or an awakening to the truth.

[glo]

interesting take. as you know, i take a rather dim view of religion and this is one of the reasons why.

i don't understand what this means:

Quote:
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5)

I agree with Caroline's explanation above.

But the reason I mentioned it to Grace Seeker, was that it is a 'religious ritual' (if you like) practised in Christianity: the baptism.

[snakelegs]

thanks for the explanation.

[glo]

I voted Paul because Jesus did not claim to be God and he did not tell us to worship him as God. As a matter of fact, in Matthew 17, he makes it clear that he is NOT equal to God:

Mathew 17:16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Hello Caroline

Strangely I have always understood those very words of Jesus to be a strong indication of his divinity.

If he is not God, why does he not deny being good?
Here he is equating 'being good' with 'being God' ("there is none good but one, that is, God "))

Being called God in monotheism is a terrible sin! It's idolatry!
If he was a prophet, he should deny such a thing in the strongest terms ... or himself become an idolator. :uuh:

Yet - as in several other instances - he does not deny it.

I see the question "Why callest thou me good?" as a challenge to the person he is speaking to. A hint, if you will, to point to who he, Jesus really is.
The challenge seems to be "Do you know who I am? And do you believe it?"

Just my personal thoughts, of course. :)

peace

[glo]

interesting take. as you know, i take a rather dim view of religion and this is one of the reasons why.

Following religious patterns and rituals may help us to focus on that, but there is also the risk that it could distract us and become something to replace our relationship with God (an idol, if you like ...)

Personally, I agree.
I find very structured worship and church services distracting rather than spiritually reviving. (Starting to make a mental shopping list is always a bad sign ... :happy:)
But that is just me. Other people may have a different view and find the routine rewarding and reassuring.

For me my faith is a very living and exciting thing! A constant pondering and practising, sometimes a battle, sometimes a gentle journey - but a very living thing nonetheless.
If ever I stopped pouring over God's word and seeking to know him better and serve him better, it would be the end of my faith ... :uuh:

Peace, snakelegs. Sometimes I wonder whether you are closer to God than many of us. :)

[Grace Seeker]

And in answer to snakelegs, No I do not think he intended to found a religion. He was not a religious person and he had some pretty frank things to say to those who were... called them vipers and things.

:omg: oops -- no offense!

Offense?! No way. I think you're right on.

interesting take. as you know, i take a rather dim view of religion

That's one of the things we have in common. Yes, I am a pastor, but among the things that can get my blood boiling: When someone claims to be "a member of the Christian religion". Usually people make such comments without thinking about what they are saying, and don't really mean anything wrong by it. But I agree with Caroline that Jesus did not come to found a religion.

Churches are organized forms of the Christian faith, and churches have members. But Christianity doesn't have members it isn't even a religion in the sense of a community organized around a particular set of rituals. The ritualization of the Christian faith has turned it into a religion, I can live with that, but when one focuses on the Christian religion with its manmade rituals over the Christian faith and Christ's principles for reconciling the person with God and connecting the individual with others in the world, then one isn't practicing the Christian faith, but the Christian religion and they are two different things.

Another statement that can get to me: When someone says that they are a (fill in the blank), but don't practice. How can you claim to be what you aren't? How can you claim to be something which you deny the essence of by the very way you live your life? This is true regardless of the religion one is talking about. Of what value is religion, any religion, when someone is very religious, but misses the whole point of the religion? When people merely keep religious rituals for their own sake, without any connection to the transforming power of God? Religion that does not awaken one to the spirit of God moving in one's life seems like a total corruption of life, filtering out the heart of one's faith and leaving one with nothing more than a spiritually dead and empty shell. I would rather a person have no religion than to have such a one that leaves the person spiritually dead. Jesus said to "beware of the yeast of the pharisees", and I think such behavior is exactly what he was referring to whether it be the empty rituals of ceremonial Jewish handwashing, the pompous prayers found in many religions done more for show to men than connection to God, or participating in Christian rituals that are to connect one to God but not living a life that gives evidence of that connection.

i don't understand what this means:

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5)

I rather like what Caroline said:

I think it means you not only have to be born of the water (amniotic fluid, physical birth) but you also have to have a birth of the spirit or an awakening to the truth.

I agree with Caroline's explanation above.

But the reason I mentioned it to Grace Seeker, was that it is a 'religious ritual' (if you like) practised in Christianity: the baptism.

I know that there are many within Christendom that see this as a statement about baptism. I am not among them. I think that it is a simple reference two different types of birth as Caroline pointed out. Those that see it as baptism by water as a requirement for new life in Christ based on this passage are doing exactly what I discussed above that I hate about religion. They are turning sacraments that are to be signs of God's grace and making them into rituals that people are required to jump through to get to God. Doing so effectively puts power in the hands of a few priests and turns Christianity from being about faith in Jesus to a religion of codified rituals. The true sadness is that once people see it as jumping through a set of required hopes, be it baptism or whatever else is created, then they often tend to behave as if all one has to do is those things and one is then "In". Say a few "magic" words, do a couple of ritualized acts, and you can go on and live your life the way you want, without regard to God. That isn't living a life reconciled to God. That is just as fallen of a lifestyle as before. That's why I don't have much regard for religion. We need to put our faith in God, not religion. And that even includes the Christian religion.

However, what I think that Jesus did was show the disciples that he could provide a way to reconcile people back to God. And this became the message that Peter and the others began to share at Pentecost. I think that it is because Paul was still a religious Jew that he opposed it when he first encountered this new message. It was only after he had an awakening to the truth of the message that he became its strongest supporter and helped to spread it more than anyone else before or sense to the broadest audience possible. But in doing so, Paul was just carrying out the commissioning that Jesus himself gave to all of his disciples to go to all nations and to continue to make new disciples of Christ everyone, no longer just among the Jews. Anyone who thinks that just because Jesus' personal ministry was confined to ministering among the Jews that his message was also to be so restricted, obviously has yet to understand Matthew 28:19-20 or even Luke 19:10. The disciples were ordered by Jesus himself, "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:8)

[MustafaMc]

i don't understand what this means:

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5)

I personally believe that it refers to baptism by water immersion and by the "Holy Spirit". I never knowingly experienced the spiritual baptism, but it is prominent in Pentecostal churches and is accompanied by "speaking in tongues".

[glo]

I personally believe that it refers to baptism by water immersion and by the "Holy Spirit". I never knowingly experienced the spiritual baptism, but it is prominent in Pentecostal churches and is accompanied by "speaking in tongues".

Not necessarily, and certainly not according to all churches.

Personally I believe that the spiritual baptism is a sense of being 'reborn', i.e. starting a new life as a follower of Christ.
I used to cringe at expressions like 'being born again' or 'giving one's life to Jesus', because those have been used and abused and simply sound wacky to most non-believers. And yet, they describe the process of a spirtual baptism quite well ...

I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, and I had referred to myself as a Christian all my life. I was christened as a baby, had my first comunion at 10 and was confirmed as a teenager.
With hindsight it all meant very little.

I clearly remember the moment at the age of 35, when I realised who Jesus was and knowingly and deliberately accepted him as my Lord and personal Saviour. It was a very personal process, something I did in my heart on my own - and everything changed thereafter! (And no, I neither rolled on the floor, frothed from the mouth or spoke in tongues ...)

Peace

[MustafaMc]

There is disagreement among Christian denominations about baptism. I grew up as a Baptist and became a member of the Church of Christ in college. The CoC was more conservative in the interpretation of the NT and taught that even the intention for immersive baptism must be for "the remission of sins" in order for it to be legitimate. Therefore, infant baptism, sprinkling, or baptism for church membership was insufficient. I had a friend of the Pentecostal persuasion and witnessed a few of their services with people "being filled with the Holy Ghost" and speaking in "tongues". The "worship service" was highly disorganized.

A few Biblical quotes:

Mark 1:4-8 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. ... I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Acts 1:55 For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Acts 2:38 And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[Grace Seeker]

I've participated in many interesting discussions regarding the meaning/purpose/nature of baptism in various Christian circles, but didn't expect to have such a theological discussion on LI. Shall I start a new thread?

Would it be allowed?

[caroline]

Hello Caroline

Strangely I have always understood those very words of Jesus to be a strong indication of his divinity.

If he is not God, why does he not deny being good?
Here he is equating 'being good' with 'being God' ("there is none good but one, that is, God "))

Being called God in monotheism is a terrible sin! It's idolatry!
If he was a prophet, he should deny such a thing in the strongest terms ... or himself become an idolator. :uuh:

Yet - as in several other instances - he does not deny it.

I see the question "Why callest thou me good?" as a challenge to the person he is speaking to. A hint, if you will, to point to who he, Jesus really is.
The challenge seems to be "Do you know who I am? And do you believe it?"

Just my personal thoughts, of course. :)

peace

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The indoctrination teaches you to read the meaning you are given instead of what is actually there. Instead of the words meaning what the words say, they mean something else for this or that reason. It's quite chilling when the scales start to fall off your eyes.

Jesus answered the people calling him good, "Why do you call ME good -- there is only ONE GOOD and that is GOD."

And that's what he meant. Period. We are taught to read so many things into that to twist and change the meaning to fit the doctrine. But that treating Jesus like a liar.

If you called me Suzi I would probably answer you, "Why are you calling me Suzi? Suzi is over there."

It's clear as a bell and there is no other logical explanation. And yet we've been so indoctrinated that we can't even see the words any more. We see all the things we've been told that the words mean, except what the words mean.

All I can do now that I am seeing how I've done this all my life is to shake my head -- its no wonder he called us SHEEP. We follow along so blindly even when we are fully capable of reading things as they are.

If we were to read that passage in any other book about any other person we would read it logically just as it is and it would make logical sense just as it is. We would perceive the meanings of the words as we do every day in our language. And yet when we read it from that passage, suddenly it means something completely opposite.

Seriously, can you read that passage as though you'd never seen it before and didn't have any preconceived notions about it and think.

It doesn't disturb you even a little bit that we can read a statement and then declare it means the opposite just because we've been told that for so long we are no longer able to see the words on the page?

The more I see it the more I shudder. It's really quite frightening. There's a level of deception there that is just chilling.

Okay, I hope I haven't offended you but I have to start saying the truth about this.

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The indoctrination teaches you to read the meaning you are given instead of what is actually there. Instead of the words meaning what the words say, they mean something else for this or that reason. It's quite chilling when the scales start to fall off your eyes.

Jesus answered the people calling him good, "Why do you call ME good -- there is only ONE GOOD and that is GOD."

And that's what he meant. Period. We are taught to read so many things into that to twist and change the meaning to fit the doctrine. But that treating Jesus like a liar.

If you called me Suzi I would probably answer you, "Why are you calling me Suzi? Suzi is over there."

It's clear as a bell and there is no other logical explanation. And yet we've been so indoctrinated that we can't even see the words any more. We see all the things we've been told that the words mean, except what the words mean.

All I can do now that I am seeing how I've done this all my life is to shake my head -- its no wonder he called us SHEEP. We follow along so blindly even when we are fully capable of reading things as they are.

If we were to read that passage in any other book about any other person we would read it logically just as it is and it would make logical sense just as it is. We would perceive the meanings of the words as we do every day in our language. And yet when we read it from that passage, suddenly it means something completely opposite.

Seriously, can you read that passage as though you'd never seen it before and didn't have any preconceived notions about it and think.

It doesn't disturb you even a little bit that we can read a statement and then declare it means the opposite just because we've been told that for so long we are no longer able to see the words on the page?

The more I see it the more I shudder. It's really quite frightening. There's a level of deception there that is just chilling.

Okay, I hope I haven't offended you but I have to start saying the truth about this.

Peace

Don't you think that you are reading through indoctrination lens also? They may be of a different prescription, but I still think you are reading through a set of indoctrination lenses. And for me the chilling thing is that each of us can see what has happened to the other, but isn't able to see that often the same thing has happened to ourselves. I'm sure I'm just as blind to this in my life as well, but, Caroline, this passage isn't saying what you think it is saying either. But if you want me to detail that you'll have to PM me or start a new thread. I don't want to let this one get too far away from it's original topic.

[caroline]

Okay. I don't how many ways you can interpret someone saying, "Why do you call ME such and such... there's only ONE person that is such and such and that is SO AND SO."

You can twist it any way you want it but it still says the same thing. It says clearly, plainly, so that any English speaker with a 6th grade level of intelligence could easily understand it means, "I'm not what you are calling me. There is only one who is that and it is NOT me."

I'm sorry but I'm just not in the fog any more and I don't care to go twisting and stretching and hunting and pecking to find a way around something as elemental as that.

[MustafaMc]

Rather it was Peter, John, Philip, and the others who were among the first articulators of a message about Jesus as:

...

I think Paul received this same message (be it directly from revelation or from conversation with the apostles is irrelevant) and took it to the Gentiles under the direction of God (Acts 13:2-3). Thus the message was already formed and articulated before Paul begins to promote it. He then becomes its biggest ambassador, but it is re-writing history to say he created it.

GraceSeeker, I understand that you must have voted for option #3 "Peter and the other disciples". Would you mind commenting on my post on page one concerning Paul and Galatians? In this letter I see a rift between Paul and the disciples of Jesus (as) over circumcision and following the Judaic Law. The "Gospel" preached by Peter to the Jews, though perhaps similar, was obviously not identical to the "Gospel" preached by Paul to the Gentiles. Which "version" of Christianity won-the-day such that we have it today.

[glo]

[...] That's exactly what I'm talking about. The indoctrination teaches you to read the meaning you are given instead of what is actually there. Instead of the words meaning what the words say, they mean something else for this or that reason. It's quite chilling when the scales start to fall off your eyes.
[...]
Peace

Greetings, caroline

I am always very careful to make sure that people know that I am expressing my own thoughts ... without asserting pressure on others.
As, indeed I did in my previous post:

I see the question "Why callest thou me good?" as a challenge to the person he is speaking to. A hint, if you will, to point to who he, Jesus really is.
The challenge seems to be "Do you know who I am? And do you believe it?"

Just my personal thoughts, of course. :)

Caroline, you have no idea how much I ponder and explore my faith and others.
I found my spiritual path five years ago following an amazing conversion experience, and I have sought more knowledge and understanding of God ever since then.
Please don't assume my faith to be based on 'indoctrination' and 'blind sheep-like following' alone - just because that's how you felt, and because you have found a different path for yourself.

I am exposed much to atheist and Islamic thoughts and ideas - not just here in LI, but in my 'real life' also; and keeping an open mind and actively engaging with other views is part of my daily walk with God.
He has not shown me another path up to now, but I ask for his guidance in prayer every day, and I welcome Him to guide me where he sees fit. :)
Obedience to God is so important, don't you think?

Seriously, can you read that passage as though you'd never seen it before and didn't have any preconceived notions about it and think.

The thoughts I gave you about that passage are my very own. They are not lifted from other people's sermons or websites.
They are exactly (or the best I can express) the thoughts and feelings I have when I read Jesus' words in Matthew 17:16. :)

This is the man who called Peter 'Satan', after Peter stated that Jesus should not take the path of the crucifiction.

Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Matthew16:23)

He called the pharisees 'broods of vipers' and drove out the money makers from the temple.

Jesus had his mind firmly on the things of God (see quote above), and he was very outspoken against those who didn't have their minds on the things of God! (I hope you agree)

And yet, when he is referred to as 'good' (which in this context equals God), or directly referred to as God in other passages, he doesn't respond?
Why not? I can think of the following possibilities:

Perhaps he cannot be bothered to correct the statement? Does that sound like the passionate man to you, who speaks out against ungodly things, and who doesn't mind treading on a few toes?? Personally, I think not.

Perhaps he is an imposter who fancies the power and admiration which comes with being considered divine by the masses? I am sure both you and I do not believe that to be true!

Perhaps he really is God? Hhmmm ...

May you always seek God, caroline, and may he fulfill his will in your life. :)

Peace

[glo]

I've participated in many interesting discussions regarding the meaning/purpose/nature of baptism in various Christian circles, but didn't expect to have such a theological discussion on LI. Shall I start a new thread?

Would it be allowed?

Well, it sounds like an interesting topic to me.

I suppose it would be a debate of purely Christian content, so I don't know if it fits into this section, which ultimately compares religions ...
But I expect we would have enough people from different denominations (Christians and ex-Christians) to discuss this topic.

What do the mods think? Woodrow? :thankyou:

[Grace Seeker]

GraceSeeker, I understand that you must have voted for option #3 "Peter and the other disciples". Would you mind commenting on my post on page one concerning Paul and Galatians? In this letter I see a rift between Paul and the disciples of Jesus (as) over circumcision and following the Judaic Law. The "Gospel" preached by Peter to the Jews, though perhaps similar, was obviously not identical to the "Gospel" preached by Paul to the Gentiles. Which "version" of Christianity won-the-day such that we have it today.

I think the answer to your final question, which "verision" won the day, is clearly spelled out in Acts 15:

1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.

This seems to be the same conflict that Paul references in Galatians 2. Now, Luke's accounting of the way that conflict was handled and Paul's vary -- I suspect some bombacity on Paul's part in the telling, he just often strikes me that way, especially when it comes to things that touch upon him personally. Luke on the other hand comes across as the more disinterested reporter of events. But, I also don't think that Luke was actually present, so it may be the Luke is telling a sanitized verision of the conversations that he terms were a "sharp dispute". I suspect the actual historical events lay someplace between.

But as for what became the acceptable standard for the church, that is provided by James in Luke's telling of it:

Acts 15

19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

In other words, there is no requirement for Greeks to become Jews in order to be part of the Church. You might think that this is Paul winning the argument. It certainly is the position he was championing. But it is important to note the Acts 10 & 11 shows that it was already the position of Peter. I can even see this in Paul's reference to Peter as a hypocrite in the passage you cite. Paul calls Peter a hypocrite becaue Peter "used to eat with the Gentiles", and then drew back from that practice when these Judaizers arrived. So, I am suggesting the Paul's position that does win the day is nothing new with Paul. It already existed with Peter and Peter had introduce this to the practice of the church before Paul did. However, there were still those that challenged the idea, and apparently embarrassed Peter into behaving like a hypocrite. And in that situation, Paul was more willing to stand up for the gospel than Peter was, but it was not Paul's invention, rather it was one that he and Peter shared, and Paul was less willing to back down.

Given that difference between them, it makes sense that Paul would be the one to take the Gospel to the Gentiles while Peter would take it to the Jews.

However, note what happens when Paul begins his next missionary journey to the Gentiles. On the heals of the Council in Jerusalem and some time back in Antioch, where the problem arose, Paul sets out to return to the Greek communities he previously visited. Only this time Timothy joins him:

Acts 16
2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him [Timothy]. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

So, here we have Paul being the one who capitulates.

What this all says to me is that there was a lot more give and take in the early church than we project on it today. They didn't have a clearly defined road map of where they were going. They just sort of found there way. Different people provided different types of leadership in different situations. Paul clearly was among the valued leaders and has had a long-lasting influence. But it wasn't just Paul. It was many others, and those others were nearly all on the scene before him. It was as he described himself, one "untimely born" (1 Corinthians 15:8, NASB) or "one born out of due time" (KJV), "born at the wrong time" (CEV).

But as to what the message was, Paul preached what he termed the "gospel", it was not a record of Jesus' teachings, it was rather the story of Jesus' act of bringing salvation to lost people:

1 Corinthians 15
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

That last line is worth repeating--"Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." The accounting from Acts shows that Paul is on the same page with all the other disciples, and here Paul's own telling of the Gospel does the same as well.

There was indeed a "rift" as you put it, but I don't think that it was worked out by one "version" winning the day over another. Rather, the church worked under the guidance of the Spirit to see what it was that God was doing, from Peter's interaction with Cornelius, to the response to Paul's preaching to Gentiles, and then affirmed what was already the practice of both, that Gentiles did not need to become Jews to find salvation. It was those who sought to make Jews of everyone that were told they did not represent the views of the apostles, and neither Peter nor Paul were in that group that opposed the teaching of the apostles on this matter.

[MustafaMc]

GraceSeeker, thank you for your thorough response with your perspective.

A few years ago I listened to a TV show by Les Feldick about the origins of Christianity and the influence of Paul. Following is an excert of the letter that I wrote to him: "I recently had the pleasure of watching one of your TV programs where you were talking about Paul as the founder of the “gospel” of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) death for our sins, burial and resurrection. I was amazed to hear that you were correctly stating that Jesus (pbuh) did not teach this doctrine as he had not yet died nor did Peter properly understand it as his conflicts with Paul in Galatians demonstrated. Your presentation struck me as being a knowledgeable and factual review of what is actually in the Bible and not biased by Christian dogma." I could not find anything on the internet referencing this show, but I did come across this article by Matthew McGee.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/2gospels.html#Differences

Peter's Gospel and Paul's Gospel

Both Peter and Paul taught that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that he was crucified, and that he rose from the dead on the third day. So one might ask, "What is the difference between their two gospels?"

Earlier in this article, we discussed rather thoroughly the difference that Paul spoke to Gentiles and Jews whereas, Peter spoke to Israel only, with the one exception of the house of Cornelius.

A second key difference is that in making the offer of the kingdom to Israel, Peter spoke of the resurrection in order to show that the Lord was alive and could still return to be Israel's King (Acts 3:19-21). Christ's death and resurrection, the sign of Jonah, were stated as evidence. However, Peter was not proclaiming them as part of the gospel of the kingdom. But Paul taught the that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are essential parts of our gospel of grace.

A third difference is that Paul taught that Jesus Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins, and that we are cleansed by His blood. But in all of his sermons in the early chapters of Acts, Peter made no mention of this. Decades later, near the end of their lives, Peter and John each wrote of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ ... However, in the early parts of Acts, they never mention the blood, sacrifice, propitiation, or that Jesus Christ died for our sins. It had not yet been revealed.

...

But Paul, on the other hand, constantly stressed the sacrificial nature of the death of Jesus Christ, ...The blood of Christ is not mentioned by the Peter and the other 11 apostles in Acts, yet it is a vital part of the gospel of grace. One must conclude that either the twelve were negligent, or that it had not yet been revealed to them that Christ died a sacrificial death. Certainly the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, did not dispense an incomplete gospel, or those that heard it would have been without hope. So the sacrificial nature of Christ's death had not been revealed to them by God, just as we saw earlier in the section titled "The Mystery of the Gospel of Grace". In reference to the cross, Peter does explain in Acts 3:18 that "But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." However, Peter does not link Christ's death to the justification of sinners.

It is of utmost importance to realize that Paul's letters are filled with the fact that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was the sacrifice that paid for our sins. .... These are just a few examples. By my count, Paul mentions the death of Jesus Christ 64 times in his epistles.

This article points out several issues that point to the "revelation" given to Paul (Gal. 1:11-12 & 15-16), as the source for what we know today as the "Gospel" - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. (I Cor. 15:1-4)

[Grace Seeker]

Mustafa,

I certainly agree that there are some things in the scriptures that are clearly Pauline, just like there are some things that are clearly Johanine, other things are found in Matthew or Luke that are not found in the writings of the other NT writers. And today you will find some teachings of the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church or the Orthodox Church that I don't hold to and some that I hold to that they do not, and we could go around the circle and each find our own uniqueness. The independent Church of Christ congregtation that you once belonged to is in some ways very foreign to my beliefs.

Then, how is it that we all fit together under the one umbrella of Christianity?

I believe it is because, as Paul himself expressed in the Corinthian passage I quoted above, that it is one not many gospels -- "Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." (1 Corinthians 15:11). And again Paul would not have any of this division that you or Mr. McGee suggest:

10My dear friends, as a follower of our Lord Jesus Christ, I beg you to get along with each other. Don't take sides. Always try to agree in what you think. 11Several people from Chloe's family have already reported to me that you keep arguing with each other. 12They have said that some of you claim to follow me, while others claim to follow Apollos or Peter or Christ. 13Has Christ been divided up? Was I nailed to a cross for you? Were you baptized in my name? 14I thank God that I didn't baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius. 15Not one of you can say that you were baptized in my name. 16I did baptize the family of Stephanas, but I don't remember if I baptized anyone else. 17Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the good news without using big words that would make the cross of Christ lose its power.

If you had said that one of Paul's emphasis was "justification by faith", I would have agreed with you.

If you had said that one of John's emphasis was the "I AMs of Jesus, the Son of God", I would have agreed with you on that too.

But to suggest that the others would deny those concepts and teach a different gospel because they have not parrotted each other repeatedly, I cannot agree with. There is but one Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is what was taught by the whole of the church. The depth of that proclamation grew over time (and in some ways continues to grow even today), we see that process articulated in the accounting of the Church's history given by Luke in Acts. But the essential kerygma message began with Peter's sermon that Jesus Christ, crucified and raised from the dead, is the means of salvation for those who will put their faith in him, and that remains the essential message of the Church to this day.

[Woodrow]

Well, it sounds like an interesting topic to me.

I suppose it would be a debate of purely Christian content, so I don't know if it fits into this section, which ultimately compares religions ...
But I expect we would have enough people from different denominations (Christians and ex-Christians) to discuss this topic.

What do the mods think? Woodrow? :thankyou:

To begin I am very impressed with this thread and very pleased to see that a Christian had the wisdom to start it. a thread of this nature can serve as a means of understanding why we each have the views we have and where our views differ.

a little understanding goes a long ways for Peaceful co-existence.

I think you will find difference even among different Christian denominations and differences among Muslims also.

Speaking as a revert. I am choosing "None of the Above" I feel it is all of the above.

[glo]

I think you will find difference even among different Christian denominations and differences among Muslims also.

Greetings, Woodrow

Personally, I experience a real sense of joy in discussing theological topics. How better to learn than by hearing the views and thoughts of others?
It doesn't mean that you have to take on the views of the others, but at least to ponder it and understand it.

I always love to hear what people belief personally.
(I find that Muslims often seem to shy away from sharing their personal interpretation and understanding. I have a sense that it is frowned upon by some, and that the opinions of scholars and leaders should be upheld rather than questioned ... - But that is just an added thought, and not relevant to this post)

The problem is that religious debates get heated so quickly, and it takes a real effort by everybody to keep the discussion balanced and peaceful.

Do you think a discussion on baptism would be interesting? And would it be appropriate in an Islamic forum?

Peace

[Woodrow]

Greetings, Woodrow

Personally, I experience a real sense of joy in discussing theological topics. How better to learn than by hearing the views and thoughts of others?
It doesn't mean that you have to take on the views of the others, but at least to ponder it and understand it.

I always love to hear what people belief personally.
(I find that Muslims often seem to shy away from sharing their personal interpretation and understanding. I have a sense that it is frowned upon by some, and that the opinions of scholars and leaders should be upheld rather than questioned ... - But that is just an added thought, and not relevant to this post)

The problem is that religious debates get heated so quickly, and it takes a real effort by everybody to keep the discussion balanced and peaceful.

Do you think a discussion on baptism would be interesting? And would it be appropriate in an Islamic forum?

Peace

I am certain that a thread on Baptism would be interesting. However, I suspect it would soon fall apart and result in many sidetracked arguments, with little relation to the topic.

[MustafaMc]

I certainly agree that there are some things in the scriptures that are clearly Pauline, just like there are some things that are clearly Johanine, other things are found in Matthew or Luke that are not found in the writings of the other NT writers. And today you will find some teachings of the Roman Catholic Church or the Lutheran Church or the Orthodox Church that I don't hold to and some that I hold to that they do not, and we could go around the circle and each find our own uniqueness. The independent Church of Christ congregtation that you once belonged to is in some ways very foreign to my beliefs.

Although there is great diversity among the various Christian denominations, there seems to be an underlying unifying foundation of believing that the "Gospel" is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The point that I have been trying to make with my quotations from Galatians, the sermon by Les Feldick, and the article by Matthew McGee is that the foundation of this doctrine originated with Paul. I see that we will have to agree to disagree, but I have laid forth my reasoning.

I see that most of the Christians responded with an answer of "God" as the founder of Christianity. I think the same can be said by adherents to any religion. However, I think that what is important is the "human interface" through which the religion is established. In contrast to our discussions regarding the "human interface" for the establishment of Christianity, I don't think there is any question that Prophet Muhammad (saaws) was the "human interface" through which Islam was established and that Islam, as it is practiced today by mainstream Sunni Muslims, is essentially the same as what was practiced by Prophet Muhammad (saaws) and his Companions (ra) in the 7th century C.E.

[chosen]

god..the chritian faith was started long before the birth of christ..the entire old testament was a directory of all the prophecies jesus would fullfill..it was meant as a guide for all those you read it so they would recognize jesus when they saw or heard about him..god created the christian faith..maybe it was not called by the same name..but a name is a name...but the religion and the faith started with god..followers of jesus are called christians..jesus was fortold in the old testament/jewish bible...god created this faith..

[MustafaMc]

What verses, other than written by Paul, clearly put forward the Christian "plan of salvation" with belief in Jesus as God incarnate and his death as the redeeming sacrifice for cleansing past, present and future mankind their sins?

[ricardo_sousa]

I think that the "decisive" moment in the creation of the Christian religion was the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine to Chirstianity in the 312, I think. So he can be seen as the "founder" of Christianity as we see it today.

[Grace Seeker]

Speaking as a revert. I am choosing "None of the Above" I feel it is all of the above.

It is a multi-option poll. You could have selected all of the options if you had wanted to.

[Grace Seeker]

What verses, other than written by Paul, clearly put forward the Christian "plan of salvation" with belief in Jesus as God incarnate and his death as the redeeming sacrifice for cleansing past, present and future mankind their sins?

If you are looking for the exact phrase "plan of salvation", you will only find it once in the entire Bible: "Meanwhile, we've got our hands full continually thanking God for you, our good friends—so loved by God! God picked you out as his from the very start. Think of it: included in God's original plan of salvation by the bond of faith in the living truth. This is the life of the Spirit he invited you to through the Message we delivered, in which you get in on the glory of our Master, Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

But here's the thing, even to get that phrase, I had to search multiple different English translations till someone chose to use that particular turn of a phrase, and that translation (The Message) was actually a paraphrase. (Compare with how the NIV & KJV translate the same verse: NIV--"But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth." KJV--"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.")


The point being that not even Paul puts forward in so many words what you question is ever put forward by others. Rather, we Christians interpret Paul to have proposed a "plan of salvation". And I agree that indeed Paul does do that. So, I am not saying that The Message was incorrect in their use of that phrase. Rather I am saying that if we understand what others are saying, they too are putting forward what you speak of as "the Christian 'plan of salvation' with belief in Jesus as God incarnate and his death as the redeeming sacrifice for cleansing past, present and future mankind their sins." But you aren't going to find it expressed as "Here is the plan of salvation" by them any more than you did by Paul, for not even Paul says it that way -- Look at what The Message version of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says about this "plan of salvation", nothing about Jesus' redeeming sacrifice at all, but God's picking of us and life in the Spirit.

Now repeatedly you will find the message that Jesus did die and was raised again from the dead in NT writer after writer. Several times in Acts we have Peter delivering sermons and addressing the Sanhedrin declaring this as both part of God's plan, and that belief in Jesus is a means for salvation. Though the terms "redeeming sacrifice" are not mentioned there, how is this message so different from Paul's? Look at what Peter says in his own letter:

1 Peter 1

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, 5who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. 8Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
10Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

who have been chosen -- see how similar this line is to Paul's in 2 Thessalonians, "God chose you", which The Message turns in its paraphrase to the only reference by Paul to a "plan of salvation".

sprinkling by his blood -- a beautiful reference to the temple's blood sacrifices that were indeed for redeeming the people from their sins. I know you know enough about both Judaism and the Tanakh to understand this reference without me going on about it in detail.

he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead -- but whereas the blood sacrifices just gave temporary relief, Jesus' sacrifice gives permament redemption in the form of a "new birth" (a phrase found not only in Paul, but also in John)

the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls -- if the object of faith for Paul is salvation, how much more so does Peter assert the same thing here.




But it is not just Peter and Paul, the unknown writer of Hebrews has the same essential message:

Hebrews 2
14Since the children have flesh and blood, he [Jesus] too shared in their humanity (incarnation) so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement (redeeming sacrifice) for the sins of the people.

And then turning to John:

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. (incarnation) 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our joy complete.
Walking in the light
5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. (redeeming sacrifice)

There are, I believe, three other writers besides Paul: Peter, John, and the unknown writer of Hebrews that I believe clearly put forward what you asked for regarding a Christian "plan of salvation", a belief in Jesus as God incarnate and in his death as a redeeming sacrifice for sin. There are more verses scattered throughout scripture if you want me to keep listing them.

[syed saboor]

Hello, again. I just wanted to let all of you know that there is a great book written by a Jewish scholar, Hyam Maccoby. The book is called "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity." The book does a very good job in outlining how Paul used pagan philosophy and ideas to come up with the Christian religion. In addition, Bart D. Ehrman, a preeminent expert on Christianity, wrote several books in which he examines, to a certain extent, the role Paul had in the creation of the Christian religion. My advice to all of you is to go on amazon.com and look up both of these authors.

I just wanted to add about this whole discussion about who founded Christianity. It is true that Paul helped to found the Christian religion, but it would be unfair just to limit it to Paul. Afterall, there were other people involved in the creation of the Christian religion as well. For instance, the early Church fathers and the Emperor Constantine. They developed Christian belief and put the final touches to this man-made relgion.

For two thousand years, Christianity has been a religion that has evolved and
adapted itself to the local circumstances that it came across. Islam has remained unchanged for fourteen hundred years. I think everybody in this post, did a good job in contributing to an excellent topic that needs serious study and contemplation.

[ricardo_sousa]

They developed Christian belief and put the final touches to this man-made relgion.

Islam also also made by mans. Muhammad was a man. And all the biographers that write about the life of Muhammad were men. Now of course, Muhammad was under the "influence" of Allah... But in the end he was just a man.

So all religions were "man-made". Because the Christians claim that the men that "build" the foundations of Christianity were also under the influence of God. That argument don´t permit a fair discussion. Is like the "prove vs disprove God".

[MustafaMc]

Islam also also made by mans. Muhammad was a man. And all the biographers that write about the life of Muhammad were men. Now of course, Muhammad was under the "influence" of Allah... But in the end he was just a man.

So all religions were "man-made". Because the Christians claim that the men that "build" the foundations of Christianity were also under the influence of God. That argument don´t permit a fair discussion. Is like the "prove vs disprove God".

Yes, there is no question that Muhammad (saaws) was a man and that he was the Messenger of Allah through which Islam was established as the way of life that is approved by Allah (swt). However, I would have to disagree that Islam is man-made. In my opinion, it takes a smaller "leap of faith" to believe that Muhammad (saaws) was preaching and practiced a Divine Message that was revealed by Allah (swt) through the Angel Jibra'il to Muhammad (saaws) than it does for Christians to believe that their religion traces back to God without corruption from pagan influences.

[syed saboor]

It's one thing to call a certain religion a man-made religion, but man-made religions in particular have the characteristic of being reflective of human desires and qualities. No where is this most evident than in Christianity. The Christian religion has anthropomorphized God to such an extent, that God has become like a man in every aspect of the word. He eats, he drinks, he gets emotional, and what have you.

The Quran is mostly written in the first person, whereas the Bible is written in mostly the third person. If one reads the Bible, they come across numerous stories depicting graphic displays of human sexuality, which are not to be found in the Quran. Now, tell me, which is the word of God. Yes, the hadeeth does graphically describe sex, but as a part of the education of Muslims, and it is not the word the God; the Quran is. In fact, many atheists have denounced the Bible, along with Muslims, as a book of pornography. For further research on this topic, please consult Ben Akerley's book, "The X-Rated Bible."

Lastly, the Quran is direct on theological issues. If one reads the Bible, for instance, one does not really get an idea of what a Christian is to believe in, whether it's the trinity, or the divinity of chirst, or what is right and what is wrong. The Quran is the ultimate and final revelation, which does more to cover what is right and what is wrong. Also, related with this, is the fact that as Muslims, we believe Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is our example, and in Islam we have a religion and a way of life, by following the sunna of Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.).

Paul, when he wrote his epistles, left mankind in the dark about many things concerning Prophet Isa. In fact, even to this day Christians don't what to believe and how to conduct themselves in life.

[MustafaMc]

Interesting that I could find few references to "saved" in the 4 gospels or in Acts.

In the Gospel according to Matthew, the angel said that Jesus will save people from their sins, but doesn't say how. Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

In the Gospel according to John, salvation is through believing "on the name of the only begotten Son of God", but there is no mention of believing that he died on the cross for one's sins. Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God. and in 10:9 Jesus says he is the door to salvation, but does not mention his death. I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and go out, and shall find pasture.

In the Gospel according to Mark, before Jesus' accension he sent the disciples out to preach the "gospel", but does not define what the gospel is. Mk 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

In the Gospel according to Luke, Jesus told the publican Zacchaeus that he and his household was saved even before Jesus' "death" with no mention of it to occur later. Lk 19:9 And Jesus said unto him, To-day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.

In the Acts of the Apostles, after Jesus' accension Peter says in 2:21And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. with no mention of believing that Jesus died for one's sins.

Notice that nothing approaching what can be recognized as the Christian "plan of salvation" is written until Romans 5:8-9, 10:9-10, I Cor 1:18. The first time that I see gospel is defined is in I Co 15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, 2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

My perspective is that the plan of salvation is poorly defined until the letters written by Paul. I understand that we disagree on this point.

[Grace Seeker]

[LEFT]

My perspective is that the plan of salvation is poorly defined until the letters written by Paul. I understand that we disagree on this point.

Ah, but we don't necessarily. In this case you added an adjective that I can accept. Yes, some of the concepts are poorly defined apart from Paul's articulation of them. However, I contend that such articulation was NOT the genesis of these ideas. You did after all find some references in other's writings. I particularly look to see what was being preached in Acts before Paul came on the scene.

[Zarmina]

Paul is the true founder of Christianity. Jesus only wanted to clean up Judaism, he did not want to start a whole new religion.

[ricardo_sousa]

It's one thing to call a certain religion a man-made religion, but man-made religions in particular have the characteristic of being reflective of human desires and qualities. No where is this most evident than in Christianity. The Christian religion has anthropomorphized God to such an extent, that God has become like a man in every aspect of the word. He eats, he drinks, he gets emotional, and what have you.

and why that is not the correct "definition" of God? Maybe God do drink and do get emotional.... Why not? Because of the Koran? But for Christians the Koran have no meaning. So you say that a religion is "man-made" because it definition of God is "human".

So if a say that God is a "green creature that eat stones" and call my religion "Non-Sense", my religion is valid under your definition, because God is far away from being a human?

[Grace Seeker]

Paul is the true founder of Christianity. Jesus only wanted to clean up Judaism, he did not want to start a whole new religion.

Jesus preached a message about the Kingdom of God. I'm not sure that is what I would call cleaning up Judaism, after all he did institute a whole new covenant in the Lord's Supper:

Luke 22:19-20
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

And the use of the term "Christian" was not one that Paul or any other Christian took upon themselves, but was applied to them by outsiders with derision. However those who were "followers of the way" accepted the label and we still use it. What Paul did was to be among the first to focus on the value of the cross as a means that God used to accomplish his redemptive purposes. But, again, he was not alone in this for many other NT writers picked up on that focus as well. If Paul had not had the support of the other disciples, I don't think that he would have had the impact that he did. Therefore, I don't think that it is possible to identify any one person as the "founder" of Chrsitianity. Rather, it was the ethos of the community itself that gave rise to the religion that revered Jesus as THE Christ and claimed that those who put their faith in him could have a new and reconciled relationship with God through the Christ. I believe Jesus himself put that in motion when he met with two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus "and beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:27).

[Yanal]

:sl:
Most Christians think Christianity was found by Paul a preacher or Jesus(Prophet Isa).

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:
Most Christians think Christianity was found by Paul a preacher or Jesus(Prophet Isa).

Most Christians would probably say Jesus. And most secular schoolbooks in western countries would probably say the same as well. But obviously that isn't the case, as Jesus was no longer on earth when Christianity finally emerged as a separate sect onto itself.

I'm just suggesting that you can't say it was Paul either. I think the problem is with the word "Founder". Christianity wasn't exactly "founded" at all.

Jesus made the following promise to Peter: "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). So, if anyone, we should probably consider Peter the founder. But in reality, it seems to have been more of a movement, starting small and growing. There were multiple leaders at the time. Peter was the chief of the apostles. But James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem and ruled over the earliest councils. While Paul spread it farther and wide across the Roman empire. And forgotten in all of this are the other disciples who took the faith to Egypt and India and other parts of the non-Roman world. My contention is that it was not any ONE person, but a group effort.

For a poor parrallel, look at the United States of America. Who founded it? We refer to George Washington as the "father of our country." But it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and James Madison who largely crafted the Constitution. Then what of Samuel Adams who gave leadership to the 1775 revolts in Boston? Some might want to point to one figure or another, but again it seems to me it was a group effort. Hence we refer to our Founding Fathers in the plural. I believe this is every bit as true of Christianity. And those who read more than a surface history of the Church can surely see this for themselves.

[Yanal]

Very clever question indeed. I think in your religion from a Christianity view I saw Jesus told Paul who preached many people and spread the religion massively over Europe because in my social studies text book we learn about Paul and how he spread the word,by mailing,walking and openly preaching.

That is my perspective and I will try to answer any questions redirected to me by this post.

[Danah]

I voted according to what I have been told by many Christians and read on the internet. Its Paul!

[Musilman]

Paul

[Yanal]

^can you explain why and not look at the majority of answers because each answer is right in a way.

[i love allah]

i dont know and dont like any of the options

[i love allah]

but first question is which christianity we are discussing here.

if you talk about original christianity, then God gave through jesus (pbuh) guidance called Injeel.

but if you talk about present day christianity (with all its corruption), then its Paul.

[Grace Seeker]

but first question is which christianity we are discussing here.

if you talk about original christianity, then God gave through jesus (pbuh) guidance called Injeel.

but if you talk about present day christianity (with all its corruption), then its Paul.

I understand that you see present day Christianity as different from what you think that Jesus taught. But I don't understand why Paul gets charged with making that change and not Jesus' disciples? After all, Paul was originally a hater of Christianity as taught by the disicples and had to be converted to it. And the thing that he hated was that the disciples were lifting up Jesus as Lord and worshipping Jesus as they did God. It was the disciples, not Paul, who first claimed that salvation was found in no other name than Jesus, a clear violation of the the 1st Commandment as far as Paul was concerned. Paul only became a Christian when he was convinced that Christians were not breaking the first commandment.

[Danah]

I understand that you see present day Christianity as different from what you think that Jesus taught. But I don't understand why Paul gets charged with making that change and not Jesus' disciples? After all, Paul was originally a hater of Christianity as taught by the disicples and had to be converted to it. And the thing that he hated was that the disciples were lifting up Jesus as Lord and worshipping Jesus as they did God. It was the disciples, not Paul, who first claimed that salvation was found in no other name than Jesus, a clear violation of the the 1st Commandment as far as Paul was concerned. Paul only became a Christian when he was convinced that Christians were not breaking the first commandment.

thanks for that note....I wanted to make sure about what Christians think about Paul at the beginning

[Yanal]

:sl:
Sister,Allah wanted to spread Islam with the original Tanjeel but people took Prophet Isa(AS) the wrong way and before he could fix the corrupted religion,it had spread massively and soon after that he was almost killed but Allah took him up to heaven.But imagine that if Prophet Isa(AS) had time to spread the right religion then all Christians today would be muslims,but that sadly did not happen but inshAllah will.
:sl:

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:
Sister,Allah wanted to spread Islam with the original Tanjeel but people took Prophet Isa(AS) the wrong way and before he could fix the corrupted religion,it had spread massively and soon after that he was almost killed but Allah took him up to heaven.But imagine that if Prophet Isa(AS) had time to spread the right religion then all Christians today would be muslims,but that sadly did not happen but inshAllah will.
:sl:

What are you saying? It sounds like you are saying that Allah and Prophet Isa (pbuh) had one set of plans but failed to accomplish them. Am I understanding you correctly?

[Forced_In]

:sl:
Sister,Allah wanted to spread Islam with the original Tanjeel but people took Prophet Isa(AS) the wrong way and before he could fix the corrupted religion,it had spread massively and soon after that he was almost killed but Allah took him up to heaven.But imagine that if Prophet Isa(AS) had time to spread the right religion then all Christians today would be muslims,but that sadly did not happen but inshAllah will.
:sl:

Salaam

I suppose this is not limited to Christianity ...

[جوري]

Paul and cronies...

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

but first question is which christianity we are discussing here.

if you talk about original christianity, then God gave through jesus (pbuh) guidance called Injeel.

but if you talk about present day christianity (with all its corruption), then its Paul.

Did you read the opening post? I believe I answered the question you ask here there at the beginning of the thread:

This forum likes to wrestle with this question, but usually does so tied up in other threads. I thought that maybe it would be good to have a dedicated thread to this topic.

So, here is the question: Who is the founder of Christianity?


Now, because some will come and try to change the nature of the question, some defintion to what I mean by the terms I used, and anticipate others using.



Christianity -- The historic Christian faith as found in the teachings of the New Testament and further articulated by the ecumenical councils of the early church at Jerusalem, Nice, Ephesus, Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon.

Founder -- source of the basic ideas and concepts that became core of the teachings that are eventually expressed as the Christian faith.

Gospel -- The teaching with regard to Jesus as both the Christ and Son of God who died on the cross for the redemption of humanity and was resurrected from the grave to new life and who now reigns alongside the Father.


Injil -- The teachings that Muslims believe were at the core of Jesus' message and which are fully in harmony with the teachings of Muhammad.


Please make every effort to distinguish between the terms Injil and Gospel and not use them interchangably.

Which Christianity? "The historic Christian faith as found in the teachings of the New Testament and further articulated by the ecumenical councils of the early church at Jerusalem, Nice, Ephesus, Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon."

And then, just seeking to prevent the vary confusion you introduce, I also said: "Please make every effort to distinguish between the terms Injil and Gospel and not use them interchangably."

[Grace Seeker]

Paul and cronies...

all the best

I'm used to thinking of cronies as meaning close friends of long standing. Who are these close friends of Paul's of whom you speak?

[sirajstc]

paul

[جوري]

I'm used to thinking of cronies as meaning close friends of long standing. Who are these close friends of Paul's of whom you speak?

I think of cronies as folks who think along the same lines-- Athanasius and his followers!

all the best

[memories]

Paul? I was sure it was Jesus, ah? well thats suprising. In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.

[coddles76]

Paul? I was sure it was Jesus, ah? well thats suprising. In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.

There are MANY surprises in christainity and thats only a small percentage of the many you'll find. You have justed expressed another surprise by stating the a christian Died on the cross, cause that would be a surprise to many people.

[memories]

There are MANY surprises in christainity and thats only a small percentage of the many you'll find. You have justed expressed another surprise by stating the a christian Died on the cross, cause that would be a surprise to many people.

Of course many surprise are to be had, coming from a text that went trough thousands of years, surely things were changed, inhanced as in all ancient documents, lets not forget the Bible was written by men, not by god, pherhaps things have been changed to better fit the sociohistorical contexte at the time.

this goes for the quoran or any other ancient texte as mentioned above.

[جوري]

The Quran hasn't hanged. I challenge you to bring me two passages from any Quran that differ from that which was written on parchment and animals bones during the time of the prophet himself...

You are so big on asserting, but never backing up any of what you write.. lucky enough to have threads closed before folks take you up on your offers..

go ahead.. let's see different passages from the Quran as per your assertion!

[memories]

The Quran hasn't hanged. I challenge you to bring me two passages from any Quran that differ from that which was written on parchment and animals bones during the time of the prophet himself...

You are so big on asserting, but never backing up any of what you write.. lucky enough to have threads closed before folks take you up on your offers..

go ahead.. let's see different passages from the Quran as per your assertion!

Unless your thousands of years old you cant prove anything either, you cant even prove the prophet existed. During the ages documents become unreliable because of the reasons I have stated in my previous post regardless of the fact that they are written on animal skin/ animal bones etc.
thats all.

[coddles76]

Lets not forget the Bible was written by men, not by god, pherhaps things have been changed to better fit the sociohistorical contexte at the time

Yes I agree, which is why I and many choose not to follow the laws of Man.

this goes for the quoran or any other ancient texte as mentioned above.

I disagree. The Quran has withstood the tests of time and not even a letter has been changed for over 1400 Years. Never has and never will, The Quran is a book that is memorised, Its kept in the hearts of its followers and every person recites the exact same words in Arabic as it was revealed. There is not other Way of life that can offer this Beauty.

[جوري]

Unless your thousands of years old you cant prove anything either, you cant even prove the prophet existed. During the ages documents become unreliable because of the reasons I have stated in my previous post regardless of the fact that they are written on animal skin/ animal bones etc.
thats all.

actually I can and have, we still have the original Quran's to measure our copies against.
Between the Muslims on this forum some of whom are complete hafith, if we burn every copy available of the Quran today, we'd be able to re-produce it again as it was recited during the time of the prophet.
We recite the Quran 17 times a day.. even without the written word, it will always remain an oral tradition. Can you claim the same of the bible?

On January 26Th 1997, The sunday times published the results of a survey by its correspondents Rajeev Syal and Cherry Norton regarding the 10 commandments. A random poll of 200 members of the ANGELICAN clergy revealed that two-thirds of Britain's vicars could not recall the ten commandments. Your basic code or morality is about ten lines, and these none lay christians couldn't recall them, and you wish to compare this with hundreds of thousands of Muslim Hafith who can bring the Quran together again if no copy remained?

If you want to assert a point then prove it!

some manuscripts of the earliest Quran

this might be helpful.. it is very comprehensive:

The Qur'anic Manuscripts

There has been a polemic going on that the Qur'an does not have manuscripts from the first century of hijra. However, this is not true. Many fragments of early Qur'anic manuscripts were shown by Orientalists notably Nabia Abbott in her work The Rise of the North Arabic script and its Kur'anic development, with a full description of the Kur'an manuscripts in the Oriental Institute (1939, University of Chicago Press). There she discusses some of the Quranic manuscripts, dated from second half of the first century hijra onwards, at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago. The aim of this page is to highlight some of the early Qur'anic manuscripts to refute the claim that the Qur'an lacks manuscripts from the first century of hijra.
The dig at the Great Mosque in Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen, had found a large number of manuscripts of the Qur'an dating from first century of hijra. The date of building the Great Mosque in Ṣanʿāʾ goes back to 6th year of hijra when the Prophet Muhammad entrusted one of his companions to build a mosque. The mosque was extended and enlarged by Islamic rulers from time to time. In 1385 H/1965 CE heavy rains fell on Ṣanʿāʾ. The Great Mosque was affected and the ceiling in the north west corner was damaged. During the survey, the workers discovered a large vault full of parchment and paper manuscripts of both the Qur'an and non-Qur'anic material.
The UNESCO, an arm of the United Nations, had compiled a CD containing some of the dated Ṣanʿāʾ manuscripts as a part of "Memory of the World" programme. In this CD there are more than 40 Qur'anic manuscripts which are dated from 1st century of hijra, one of them belonging to early 1st century. More than 45 manuscripts have been dated from the period 1st / 2nd century of hijra.We will be showing only a few examples below.
A few more examples of the 1st and 1st / 2nd century Qur'anic manuscripts can be found in the book Maṣāḥif Ṣanʿāʾ (1985, Dār al-Athar al-Islāmiyyah). This book is a catalogue of an exhibition at the Kuwait National Museum, with articles by Hussa Sabah Salim al-Sabah, G. R. Puin, M. Jenkins, U. Dreibholz in both Arabic and English. It is expected that the Ṣanʿāʾ manuscripts will throw a great deal of light on the early Islamic history of calligraphy and illumination and even the various ahruf (they were seven) in which the Qur'an was revealed.
A few words of caution concerning the dating of the Qur'anic manuscripts need to be mentioned. It is to be remembered that assigning a date to an undated early Qur'anic manuscript is rarely simple especially in the absence of wakf marking. There is a tendency to assume that those in large scripts and without vowels are of the earliest date. This assumption, true to some extent, is nevertheless misleading in two respects. It ignores that fact that small as well as large maṣāḥif of the Qur'an were among the earliest written and that both types continued to be written thereafter. Though the assumption that manuscripts with the vowels must be considered later than those without is true in some cases, it is not always so, for some very early manuscripts of the Qur'an, originally written without vowels, may well have been voweled later. Furthermore, the first vowel system came into use shortly after the first maṣāḥif were written. There are also examples of later maṣāḥif which were unvoweled even after 3 centuries after hijra!
As a matter of caution, we stress the fact that we are only showing a single leaf of the manuscripts in the cases below. A manuscript may contain additional sūrahs. The reader is advised to go through the references for additional information.
Looking for something similar? Try

The Arabic Papyri | Arabic & Islamic Inscriptions | The Islamic Coins

1. The Qur'anic Script & Palaeography

On The Origins Of The Kufic Script

The Christian missionaries have claimed that the Kufic script originated not earlier than 150 years after hijra. They have argued that it is also the view of both Martin Lings and Yasin Safadi. This article is a devastating refutation of their claims.

The Dotting Of A Script And The Dating Of An Era: The Strange Neglect Of PERF 558, A. Jones, Islamic Culture, 1998, Volume LXXII, No. 4, pp. 95-103.

It is usually assumed that the dotting of the Arabic script began with the advent of dotting of Qur'anic manuscripts. However, recent observation on a 70 year old Arabic papyri has shown conclusively that dotting was available as early as 22 AH, perhaps even earlier.

Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) Dating And The Qur'ānic Manuscripts

Radiocarbon dating of ancient Qur'anic manuscripts in the literature is very rare. Can radiocarbon dating provide more accurate results than traditional palaeographic techniques and associated methods? A discussion of the scientific principles underpinning this radiometric dating technique, together with some practical examples from actual Qur'anic manuscripts, highlights the strengths and weaknesses of this procedure as compared to more traditional palaeographic based methods.

From Alphonse Mingana To Christoph Luxenberg: Arabic Script & The Alleged Syriac Origins Of The Qur'an

A path-breaking discourse or is it yet another headline grabbing exercise? You decide!

Dated Texts Containing The Qur’an From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE.

The corpus of dated texts containing the Qur'an from 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE proving the early codification of the Qur'an in Arabic.

2. Examples Of The Qur'anic Manuscripts

THE ʿUTHMĀNIC MANUSCRIPTS

No discussion about the Qur'anic manuscripts begins without the mention of the ʿUthmānic manuscripts of the Qur'an. Narrations differ as to how many copies were directly ordered and sent out by the Caliph ʿUthmān, but they range from four to seven. It seems certain from various Muslim historical sources that several were lost, through fire amongst other things. There are some copies that are attributed to ʿUthmān. However, it is to be added that there is a disagreement between the scholars whether they are truly ʿUthmānic. Some Western scholars have rejected the Qur'anic manuscripts attributed to ʿUthmān as "pious forgeries" without showing any scientific evidence (i.e., study of the parchment, script, ink etc.). This itself is unscientific to an extreme. We will discuss some important manuscripts attributed to ʿUthmān below.

The "Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān" At Tashkent (Samarqand), Uzbekistan, From 2nd Century Hijra.

A folio from a Qur'anic manuscript in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, commonly attributed to caliph ʿUthmān, has recently been subject to radiocarbon tests at Oxford, United Kingdom. Although the dates generated by this radiometric technique at either confidence level do not rule out the possibility that this manuscript was produced in ʿUthmān's time, palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century (2nd century hijra) date.

The "Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān" At The Topkapi Museum, Istanbul, Turkey, From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra.

This manuscript was written in Kufic script and contains 408 folios. The extant folios contain more than 99% of the text of the Qur'an. Only two folios are missing. The manuscript shows the script, illumination and marking of vowels that are from the Umayyad times (i.e., late 1st century / early 2nd century of hijra).

The "Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān" At St. Petersburg (Russia), Katta Langar, Bukhārā And Tashkent (Uzbekistan), From 2nd Century Hijra.

A manuscript written in the late ḥijāzī script, containing about 40% of the text of the Qur'an, with full texts of 22 surahs and fragments of another 22.

The Al-Hussein Mosque Manuscript.

FIRST CENTURY HIJRA

There exist at least four Qur'anic manuscripts that are primarily dated to first half of the first century of hijra (i.e., before 50 AH / 670 CE). These are not the ‘Uthmanic Qur'ans and are parchments written in the ḥijazi script.

Codex Ṣanʿāʾ – Inv. No. 01-27.1: Mid-1st Century Of Hijra.

Perhaps the most significant manuscript of the Qur'an palimpsest so far discovered at Ṣanʿāʾ, this codex is datable to the middle of the first century of hijra. The leaves from codex Ṣanʿāʾ inv. 01-27.1 have appeared under the hammer at auction houses like Christie's, Sotheby's and Bonham's; the most recent one at Christie's in 2008 fetching a remarkable sum of £2,200,000, around fifteen times the estimated asking price. This codex exemplifies the principal tendencies of the early ḥijāzī script and is of tremendous importance regarding the textual transmission of the Qur'an, Arabic palaeography, codicology and other related disciplines. Below is a detailed description of some of the folios from this codex.

A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra: Part Of Sūrah Luqmān And Sūrah al-Sajda.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen. This palimpsest from Ṣan‘a' is dated to first half of the first century of hijra. An image acquired using ultraviolet photography is also shown in order to appreciate the improvement of contrast of the washed-off writing. This manuscript may have belonged to the same codex as the one discussed below.

A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra: Part Of Sūrah al-Sajda And Sūrah al-Ahzāb.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen. This manuscript from Ṣan‘a' is dated to first half of the first century of hijra by Hans-Casper Graf von Bothmer.

Surah al-‘Imran. Verses number : End Of Verse 45 To 54 And Part Of 55.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

Surah al-Shura, Surah al-Zukhruf. Verses number : End Of Verse 49 Of Surah Al-Shura To Verse 31 Of Surah al-Zukhruf And Part Of 32.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

Below are the examples of the 1st century hijra manuscripts written in the ḥijāzī and the Kufic scripts.

Arabe 328a: A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra In Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

This is one of the most important manuscripts written in the ḥijāzī script from first century hijra. It has 58 folios; 56 of them at the the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris and one each at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana and the Nasser David Khalili Collection. This manuscript has 58 folios which contains about 28% of the total text of the Qur'an.

Vat. Ar. 1605: A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra In Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

A manuscript from the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana [Vatican Library] written in the ḥijāzī script. This manuscript, one folio in the Nasser David Khalili Collection (Accession No. KFQ 60, published by Déroche) and 56 folios in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris (Arabe 328a) are parts of the same muṣḥaf. They all are dated to first century of hijra.

MS. Or. 2165: A Qur'anic Manuscript From The 1st Century Hijra In The British Library.

Hailed as by the earlier keepers of it as "probably the earliest Qur'an ever brought to Europe", the British Library says that it is the "oldest Qur'an manuscript" in their possession. This manuscript is written in the ḥijāzī (or ma'il) script. It is usually dated around the mid-second century of hijra. However, a recent study by Yasin Dutton has shown that this manuscript is remarkably similar to the first century Qur'anic manuscript MS. Arabe 328a in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Based on the similarity between MS. Arabe 328a and MS. Or. 2165, he suggests redating this manuscript to the time just before the Umayyad Caliph Walid (r. 86-96 AH), i.e., within the period 30-85 AH with the latter end of this time scale being safer. This manuscript has 121 folios which contains about 53% of the total text of the Qur'an.

The “Great Umayyad Qur'ān” From The Time Of Caliph Al-Walīd, Late 1st Century Hijra.

This monumental and the earliest Kufic Qur'anic manuscript, perhaps one of the most well-studied and is dated to the last decade of the 1st century of hijra, around 710 - 715 CE, in the reign of the Umayyad Caliph al-Walīd. This manuscript is unique in the sense that it open with a group of full page images. These images are the only known Qur'an illustrations and are absolutely unique among extant Qur'an manuscripts. Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

The ‘Mingana Palimpsest’ – A Manuscript Containing Qur'ān From 1st Century Hijra.

Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis was the first scholar to publish this unique palimpsest that has scriptio superior which is a Christian material (Arabic Christian homilies) and the scriptio inferior consisting of the Qur'anic verses. Mingana presented a full transcription of the Qur'anic text of the scriptio inferior of the manuscript, with the parallel text from the present day Qur'an. But his claim of "variants" in the Qur'anic text has come under suspicion partly because of his own history of being involved in suspected forgeries. Recent study by Fedeli on this manuscript has confirmed that the "inevitable and easy conclusion" is that all of Mingana's transcription can be suspected to be wrong. A recent surge of interest in this manuscript is due to the fact that the scriptio inferior was written in the ḥijāzī script.

An ‘Umayyad’ Fragment Of The Qur'ān From 1st Century Hijra.

This private-owned fragment of the Qur'an was recently published by Yasin Dutton. On the basis of palaeography and radiocarbon analysis, he dated it to the second half of the 1st century of hijra / late 7th or early 8th century CE.

Surah al-An‘am. Verses number : Part Of Verse 5 To 19 And Part Of 20.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

Surah al-Nahl. Verses number : End Of Verse 73 To 88 And Part Of 89.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra: Part Of Sūrah Maryam & Sūrah Ṭāhā.

This folio has probably been written by two different copyists as the script in the first half is different from the second. It is italic in the first half and regular in the second half of the fragment except for the letter alīf. The ornamentation here is simple. Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

A Qur'anic Manuscript In The Ḥijazi Script From c. 700 CE.

Eight leaves (one fragmentary), 20-27 lines to the page written in brown ḥijāzī script, diacritical marks, where present, consists of oval dots or angled dashes, no vowel points, clusters of brown ink dots to indicate verse divisions, circular devices consisting of green and red dots every ten verses, one long, narrow rectangular panel of green and red decoration with a circular marginal device consisting of coloured dots on final folio, probably to indicate the sūrah heading of Sūrah al-Nisa, leaves sewn together with original stitching. It contains Sūrah āl-‘Imrān, verses 34-184.

A Perg. 2: A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra.

A manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Vienna, written in the ḥijāzī script.

A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra: Surah al-Ma'idah. Verses 7 Through 12.

A manuscript from the Beit al-Qur'an, Manama, Bahrain, written in the Kufic script.

P. Michaélidès No. 32 - A Qur'anic Manuscript From First Century Hijra.

Manuscript from the Collection George Michaélidès, Cairo (Egypt) written in the Kufic(?) script.

A Ma‘il Manuscript in Kuwait - A Qur'anic Manuscript From First Century Hijra.

Manuscript from the Tariq Rajab Museum, Kuwait. Written in the ma‘il script [External Link].

FIRST / SECOND CENTURY HIJRA

Codex Mixt. 917 – A Qur'ānic Manuscript From 1st / 2nd Century Hijra.

This manuscript was written in either the late ḥijāzī or kufic script and contains 105 folios. The extant folios contain about 27% of the text of the Qur'an. A rare form of punctuation is also displayed in this manuscript corroborating its eighth century CE dating.

Surah al-Isra' (17) Verses Number: From 20 To 22 And Part Of 23.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

Surah al-Kahf (18) Verses Number: Part Of 17 To 27 And Part Of 28.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

Surah al-Mumtahinah (60) Verses Number: Part Of 4 To 8 And Part Of 9.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

Surah al-Ma'idah. Verses Number: Part Of Verse 94 To Part Of Verse 97.

Manuscript from the Beit al-Qur'an, Manama (Bahrain), written in the Kufic script.

SECOND CENTURY HIJRA

Surah al-Tawba, Surah Yunus: Part Of 129 From Surah Al-Tawba To Part Of 4 From Surah Yunus.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

A Perg. 203: A Qur'anic Manuscript From The Beginning Of 2nd Century Hijra In The Austrian National Library.

Manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Vienna. Written in the Kufic script.

A Perg. 201: A Qur'anic Manuscript From The Beginning Of 2nd Century Hijra In The Austrian National Library.

Manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Vienna. Written in the Kufic script.

A Perg. 213: A Qur'anic Manuscript From The Beginning Of 2nd Century Hijra.

Manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Vienna. Written in the Makkan script.

A Perg. 186: A Qur'anic Manuscript From Middle Of 2nd Century Hijra In The Austrian National Library.

Manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Vienna. Written in the Kufic script.

A Perg. 202: A Qur'anic Manuscript From 2nd Century Hijra In The Austrian National Museum.

Manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Vienna. Written in the Makkan script.

A Perg. 207: A Qur'anic Manuscript From 2nd Century Hijra In The Austrian National Museum.

Manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Vienna. Written in the Makkan script.

A Perg. 27: A Qur'anic Manuscript From The End Of 2nd Century Hijra In The Austrian National Museum.

Manuscript from the Austrian National Library, Vienna. Written in themashq script.

The "Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān" At Tashkent (Samarqand), Uzbekistan, From 2nd Century Hijra.

This famous manuscript, also known as the Samarqand manuscript, housed in Tashkent, is commonly attributed to Caliph ‘Uthman. A folio from a Qur'anic manuscript in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, has recently been subject to radiocarbon tests at Oxford, United Kingdom. Although the dates generated by this radiometric technique at either confidence level do not rule out the possibility that this manuscript was produced in ‘Uthman's time, palaeographic studies suggest an 8th century (2nd century hijra) date.

The "Qur'ān Of ʿUthmān" At St. Petersburg (Russia), Katta Langar, Bukhārā And Tashkent (Uzbekistan), From 2nd Century Hijra.

A manuscript written in the late ḥijāzī script, containing about 40% of the text of the Qur'an, with full texts of 22 surahs and fragments of another 22.

One Of The Earliest Dated Qur'anic Manuscript (107 AH / 725 CE) At Egyptian National Library.

An example of one of the earliest dated Qur'anic manuscripts at the Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya (Egyptian National Library), Cairo (Egypt).

A Kufic Manuscript in the King Faisal Centre For Research and Islamic Studies - A Qur'anic Manuscript From 2nd Century Hijra.

A manuscript from the King Faisal Centre For Research and Islamic Studies, Saudi Arabia, written in Kufic script [External Link].

SECOND / THIRD CENTURY HIJRA

Surah Al-Ma'idah, Surah al-An‘am. Part Of 117 (Surah Al-Ma'idah) To Part Of 1 Of Surah Al-An‘am.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

Surah Al-Baqarah. Part Of 80 To Part Of 81.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

Surah Al-Mursalat. 5 To 26 And Part Of 27.

Located at Dār al-Makhtūtāt, Ṣanʿāʾ, Yemen.

SOME UNIQUE MANUSCRIPTS

The Famous "Blue" Qur'an.

EXTERNAL LINKS TO THE QUR'ANIC MANUSCRIPTS

Professor Brannon Wheeler's Qur'an Manuscripts Page

It contains a healthy collection of Qur'anic manuscripts dated from 1st century of hijra onwards till 14th century of hijra in various scripts such as ma'il, kufic, thuluth, bihari, diwani, andalusi, maghribi and nastaliq.

The Schøyen Collection, National Library Of Norway

It has some good collection of Qur'anic manuscripts dating from as early as 2nd century of hijra.

3. The Qira'at In The Qur'anic Manuscripts Early Qur'anic manuscripts, unlike the modern printed editions, rarely contain information of the Qira'at in which they were written. Deciphering the Qira'at in the Qur'anic manuscripts is a recent endeavour and a very tedious task. Scholars like Nabia Abbott had only mentioned about Qira'at in the manuscripts in a very cursory way. Recently, in-depth studies have been undertaken to decipher the Qira'at in the Qur'anic manuscripts by Dr. Yasin Dutton of University of Edinburgh. He has been looking into various Qur'anic manuscripts to understand the purpose of using various coloured dots in the writing of the Qur'an and studying the consonantal structure (where dotting is nearly absent as in early Qur'ans written in ḥijazi or ma'il script) to find out the Qira'at in which the Qur'an manuscript was written. Here are a few examples of the manuscripts in which the Qira'at has been identified.

The Qira'at Identified In The Qur'anic Manuscripts

We will also mention Dr. Dutton's publications and provide a brief overview. This section is primarily for those who have access to journals in their libraries.

Y. Dutton, "An Early Mushaf According To The Reading Of Ibn ‘Amir", Journal Of Qur'anic Studies, 2001, Volume III (no. I), pp. 71-89.

This study is based on 1st century Qur'anic manuscript "Arabe 328a" in Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, written in ḥijazi (or ma'il) script. This manuscript has enough material to be able to ascertain the reading it represents. This manuscript is almost devoid of dotting and hence the consonantal structure is used to determine the Qira'at and it was found to be that of Ibn ‘Amir (d. 118 / 736) - one of the reading later to be declared indisputably mutawatir by Ibn Mujahid (d. 324 / 926). This study is first of its kind on early Qur'anic manuscripts.

Y. Dutton, "Some Notes On The British Library's 'Oldest Qur'an Manuscript' (Or. 2165)", Journal Of Qur'anic Studies, 2004, Volume VI (no. 1), pp. 43-71.

The study by Dr. Dutton has shown that this manuscript is remarkably similar to first century manuscript MS. Arabe 328a in Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and was written in the Qira'at of Ibn ‘Amir. Based on the similarity between MS. Arabe 328a and MS. Or. 2165, he suggests redating this manuscript to the time just before Umayyad Caliph Walid (r. 86-96 AH), i.e., within the period 30-85 AH with the latter end of this time scale being the safer.

Y. Dutton, "Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots & Blue: Some Reflections On The Vocalisation Of Early Qur'anic Manuscripts - Part I", Journal Of Qur'anic Studies, 1999, Volume I (no. I), pp. 115-140.

Y. Dutton, "Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots & Blue: Some Reflections On The Vocalisation Of Early Qur'anic Manuscripts - Part II", Journal Of Qur'anic Studies, 2000, Volume II (no. I), pp. 1-24.

This two-part detailed study is done on the Qur'anic manuscripts from Bodleian Library (Oxford) that date from 3rd / 4th century of hijra. The broad conclusions of this study are:

1. Variants, including shadhdh variants, are not only marked, but in a sense, highlighted by the use of different coloured dots.
2. The presence of shadhdh variants alongside Seven, Ten or Fourteen Qira'a suggests that the shadhdh variants were treated as seriously as the main readings by those responsible for vocalization.
3. The vocalized manuscript enables us to have some idea of the reading, or readings, represented. Where there are only single or limited folios available this is not usually possible, but where there is either a distinctive feature, or enough of a sufficiently well-vocalized manuscript, it is often possible to fix the reading with some precision.

4. The Qur'anic Manuscripts In Museums, Institutes, Libraries & Collections

Maktabat al-Jami‘ al-Kabir (Maktabat al-Awqaf), The Great Mosque, San‘a', Yemen (See the manuscripts from 1st, 1st/2nd, 2nd and 2nd/3rd century of hijra).

Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya (Egyptian National Library), Cairo, Egypt.

Astan-i Quds-i Razavi Library, Mashhad, Iran.

Islamic Museum, Jerusalem, Palestine.

Beit al-Qur'an, Manama, Bahrain (See the manuscripts from 1st and 1st/2nd century of hijra).

The Nasser David Khalili Collection Of Islamic Art, London, United Kingdom.

Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, France.

The Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States of America.

The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, Ireland.

The Institute Of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia (See the manuscript from 1st/2nd century of hijra).

go ahead prove yourself right!

[memories]

I dont care to hear about how much superior you think you and your religion is, I just stated that troughout the ages documents become unreliable,thats it. And you can hardly use ''Oral tradition'' to prove the quoran is reliable, ever played a game of telephone?

Just like I said, regardless of the fact that it is written on skin or bones or that it is said to be recited a certain numbers of times a day or that it is said to be written by the time of the prophet, time= unreliable documents, this goes for the Bible AND the quran, thats all. we cant be 100% sure that the text is reliable, pherhaps it is ''more'' reliable than the bible to some extent but thats all, Its pretty obvious according to me, a Doctor should understand this.

Regards.

[جوري]

I dont care to hear about how much superior you think you and your religion is, I just stated that troughout the ages documents become unreliable,thats it. And you can hardly use ''Oral tradition'' to prove the quoran is reliable, ever played a game of telephone?

Are you capable of reading, comprehending and clicking on the links provided above?

Just like I said, regardless of the fact that it is written on skin or bones or that it is said to be recited a certain numbers of times a day or that it is said to be written by the time of the prophet, time= unreliable documents, this goes for the Bible AND the quran, thats all. we cant be 100% sure that the text is reliable, pherhaps it is ''more'' reliable than the bible to some extent but thats all, Its pretty obvious according to me, a Doctor should understand this.

Regards.

in other words, aside from your very reactive and non-factual opinion, you have nothing to go on? Good!
Now that we have gotten that out of the way in a very public manner, I suggest for your own credibility, that you not blurt out statements you can't back up factually or historically and then whining about it!

all the best!

[malayloveislam]

Through what I had read, I can conclude that Paul taught the dogma of Trinity and the Original Sin of human-being, which needs Salvation from the blood of god Jesus.

I cannot speculate about Jesus (pbuh) had taught this and I can not speculate that the 12 disciples also taught this because I did not finish yet reading the Roman Bible. I will have to bear the burden in the hereafter if I speak without deep knowledge and understanding. I am still confuse which one is considered as the main G-d, is it Jesus, Father the G-d, or Holy Spirit because three of them are all Gods, unless if I think like a Hindu, then I can understand, G-d had many avataras (incarnation). He may shift into a She, because He is with Female aspect. He may shift from the aspect of Creating into the aspect of Preserving, then into aspect of Destroying which are totally different persons but when worshiped they are all the same. He may shift into prominent legendary figures like Rama, Krishna, etc because they are the descendants of Him.

Pure Monotheism do not regard G-d as incarnating in human, angels (devas), or other beings. That will lead to Pantheism (everything is G-d) and later into Polytheism. G-d is Holy and He is not a being. He is not the same in any form to His creatures. He has no gender male or female. I'm using "He" personal pronoun just because it is understood in English. In my language which is Malay we simply use the same third personal pronoun to refer all with genders or anything without gender. So, I could just conclude that Paul are the one who taught Trinity dogma.

Later the Consilies held by Church Fathers accepting the Dogma of Trinity. So it is believed that Christians prior the Consilies are in diverse faiths. Some belief G-d is One, some belief that He is Three in One, One in Three, Three for One, One for Three like the Three Musketeers. Some may also belief Jesus is fully Divine and the same person with his Father which is G-d the Father, so basically G-d is Jesus, Jesus is G-d?? Some belief that Jesus is half divine, and half G-d like Hercules. He is human and also G-d. Some belief he is solely a prophet sent by G-d to enlighten human-being who had gone astray from noble morality, so he is different from G-d and not divine, only G-d is Divine and many other views which I will have to revise one by one because I can not give my view without revising and stating sources of my view.

So, I would say that it is Paul, and later dogmatized by Church Fathers. Capital "F" because they are taking the role of G-d in setting legal Dogma for the faithful. In Roman Catholicism, Fathers can listen to the sin and forgiving the sins of sinful human-being after they say "repent!" and the person confirmed, "I repent". Thus, they may be G-d or maybe prophets sent revelation by G-d to inform that the sin of the person who admitting sins in the church. I might be wrong or might be right.

[جوري]

Through what I had read, I can conclude that Paul taught the dogma of Trinity and the Original Sin of human-being, which needs Salvation from the blood of god Jesus.

I cannot speculate about Jesus (pbuh) had taught this and I can not speculate that the 12 disciples also taught this because I did not finish yet reading the Roman Bible. I will have to bear the burden in the hereafter if I speak without deep knowledge and understanding. I am still confuse which one is considered as the main G-d, is it Jesus, Father the G-d, or Holy Spirit because three of them are all Gods, unless if I think like a Hindu, then I can understand, G-d had many avataras (incarnation). He may shift into a She, because He is with Female aspect. He may shift from the aspect of Creating into the aspect of Preserving, then into aspect of Destroying which are totally different persons but when worshiped they are all the same. He may shift into prominent legendary figures like Rama, Krishna, etc because they are the descendants of Him.

Pure Monotheism do not regard G-d as incarnating in human, angels (devas), or other beings. That will lead to Pantheism (everything is G-d) and later into Polytheism. G-d is Holy and He is not a being. He is not the same in any form to His creatures. He has no gender male or female. I'm using "He" personal pronoun just because it is understood in English. In my language which is Malay we simply use the same third personal pronoun to refer all with genders or anything without gender. So, I could just conclude that Paul are the one who taught Trinity dogma.

Later the Consilies held by Church Fathers accepting the Dogma of Trinity. So it is believed that Christians prior the Consilies are in diverse faiths. Some belief G-d is One, some belief that He is Three in One, One in Three, Three for One, One for Three like the Three Musketeers. Some may also belief Jesus is fully Divine and the same person with his Father which is G-d the Father, so basically G-d is Jesus, Jesus is G-d?? Some belief that Jesus is half divine, and half G-d like Hercules. He is human and also G-d. Some belief he is solely a prophet sent by G-d to enlighten human-being who had gone astray from noble morality, so he is different from G-d and not divine, only G-d is Divine and many other views which I will have to revise one by one because I can not give my view without revising and stating sources of my view.

So, I would say that it is Paul, and later dogmatized by Church Fathers. Capital "F" because they are taking the role of G-d in setting legal Dogma for the faithful. In Roman Catholicism, Fathers can listen to the sin and forgiving the sins of sinful human-being after they say "repent!" and the person confirmed, "I repent". Thus, they may be G-d or maybe prophets sent revelation by G-d to inform that the sin of the person who admitting sins in the church. I might be wrong or might be right.

:sl:

you write such excellent posts and I really enjoy your far eastern insights.. Indeed I quoted another fellow today similarities between Hinduism and Christianity given the concept of reincarnation as pertains to Jesus (PBUH) theophany and anthropomorphism of God relating to so many Pagan ideals and rituals..

I don't think your posts get the attention they deserve, because amongst other things you are actually quite meticulous, learned and pay attention to details, which is something not many folks look for when they join a forum.

wanted to let you know, you are doing a good job Masha'Allah, and I am learning quite a bit from you..

:w:

[malayloveislam]

The Quran hasn't hanged.

Salam and Peace,

We just need to read and understand to compare. Talking simply won't change anything. Saying that Quran is altered won't change anything. Read the texts any translation if you can't read it in the original tongue or can't even understand. Put them in a thread different than this and we will see what is different in the version of Quran used by Muslims around the world. We have Muslims from many region here. From Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australasia, and etc. We also have Muslims from many countries and speaking different languages. See what they will have to say. But make sure it is in different and suitable thread.

[جوري]

Salam and Peace,

We just need to read and understand to compare. Talking simply won't change anything. Saying that Quran is altered won't change anything. Read the texts any translation if you can't read it in the original tongue or can't even understand. Put them in a thread different than this and we will see what is different in the version of Quran used by Muslims around the world. We have Muslims from many region here. From Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australasia, and etc. We also have Muslims from many countries and speaking different languages. See what they will have to say. But make sure it is in different and suitable thread.

Indeed.. I have provided quite an expansive textual evidence with original manuscript. But I believe that as you say, folks don't want to read or spend the time because they are more comfortable in their beliefs..

I think the divergence between us, is that you write with hopes that folks can compare and come to the light, whereas I write to refute allegations leveled against Islam in the process strongly contrasting the differences between those two theologies...

I have come to believe after many yrs of blogging, is that you can tell right off the bat who has genuine interest in learning and who is here to jest and mock..
The prophet SAW described in a hadith that I can't currently locate, that some kuffars are like cedar trees, their beliefs are unyielding, the only way for them to change is to have their beliefs uprooted.

and Allah swt knows best

nonetheless for what it is worth, I actually learnt quite a bit from you :smile:

:w:

[memories]

Salam and Peace,

We just need to read and understand to compare. Talking simply won't change anything. Saying that Quran is altered won't change anything. Read the texts any translation if you can't read it in the original tongue or can't even understand. Put them in a thread different than this and we will see what is different in the version of Quran used by Muslims around the world. We have Muslims from many region here. From Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australasia, and etc. We also have Muslims from many countries and speaking different languages. See what they will have to say. But make sure it is in different and suitable thread.

Im not saying theirs different versions, Im saying theirs a possibility that it has been altered since the begining because of time, time alters Documents wether they are written on Bones, animal skin,rocks whatever. time= altered documents. whatever I write today, in 2000 years theirs strong chances it wont be the same thing at all! thats it! end of story. Period.

[malayloveislam]

:sl:

you write such excellent posts and I really enjoy your far eastern insights.. Indeed I quoted another fellow today similarities between Hinduism and Christianity given the concept of reincarnation as pertains to Jesus (PBUH) theophany and anthropomorphism of God relating to so many Pagan ideals and rituals..

I don't think your posts get the attention they deserve, because amongst other things you are actually quite meticulous, learned and pay attention to details, which is something not many folks look for when they join a forum.

wanted to let you know, you are doing a good job Masha'Allah, and I am learning quite a bit from you..

:w:

:sl:

It is OK sister, I don't really care about others attention. They will think themselves if they care to read. I belief that not many people know about the Greek Conquest over ancient India before Christ Era. How could the Pagan teaching arrived in Greek if not from India? And the Greeks had also conquered the land of Palestine where the person whose name is Jesus (pbuh) was born. Hinduism have different level of religions in it. You can see ideologies in it without have to revise the Roman or Greek religions. We also need History of Human Civilization, not merely Modern Science to check our faiths. Science merely means knowledge. Any field of knowledge is useful for us to make comparison and to think.

British had never succeeded in Evangelizing to Muslims in my country. Even the earlier Portuguese too can only evangelize to small portion of people who had not read the enlightening Quran. Once Muslim missionaries came in slow flow, local people quickly embracing Islam without any battle (specifically in my area, other area had different experiences). Our region in SEA was known as the Lands Conquered by Hindu gods in ancient time.

[جوري]

:sl:

It is OK sister, I don't really care about others attention. They will think themselves if they care to read. I belief that not many people know about the Greek Conquest over ancient India before Christ Era. How could the Pagan teaching arrived in Greek if not from India? And the Greeks had also conquered the land of Palestine where the person whose name is Jesus (pbuh) was born. Hinduism have different level of religions in it. You can see ideologies in it without have to revise the Roman or Greek religions. We also need History of Human Civilization, not merely Modern Science to check our faiths. Science merely means knowledge. Any field of knowledge is useful for us to make comparison and to think.

British had never succeeded in Evangelizing to Muslims in my country. Even the earlier Portuguese too can only evangelize to small portion of people who had not read the enlightening Quran. Once Muslim missionaries came in slow flow, local people quickly embracing Islam without any battle (specifically in my area, other area had different experiences). Our region in SEA was known as the Lands Conquered by Hindu gods in ancient time.

:sl:

well you are doing a good deed no matter how you slice it and we are certainly glad to have you aboard..
incidentally, have you read the book 'The history Of Quranic text' by Dr. M.M Al-Azami?

it might be of great interest to you, as it levels some of the arguments orientalists have about the lack of christian presence in Arabia which made it allegedly easier for Islam to infiltrate..
He deals quite well with it from a historical perspective as well -- given the two christian and few Jewish tribes in Makkah....

If you haven't already read it, I think you might deeply enjoy it.. I am only a quarter of the way done, and I find it to be well sourced and excellent..

I have to be getting to bed now because I need to be up early, but thank you so much for an excellent read.

waslaam 3lykoum wr wb

[malayloveislam]

Im not saying theirs different versions, Im saying theirs a possibility that it has been altered since the beginning because of time, time alters Documents wether they are written on Bones, animal skin,rocks whatever. time= altered documents. whatever I write today, in 2000 years theirs strong chances it wont be the same thing at all! thats it! end of story. Period.

Peace,

Then you are saying the person Muhammad (pbuh) altered the Quran? I guess that I don't have to lecture to you about the qualities possessed by prophets and holy messengers of G-d in Islam. Specifically specify in what manner the possibilities of the documents being altered through out the time? Do you read the History on the Compilation of Quran?

In prophet (pbuh) time people are reciting the verses, it is not a written document only on sanctified bones, palm leaves, clothes, and etc. I am now in the process of memorizing Quranic verses. Say if I have bad intention to use it for my own benefits and bending the verses, can't others who did the same with pure heart rejecting it and specify it with the standard manuscript that they have? Also can't others giving the specified and standard interpretation since the time of prophet (pbuh) to clear up my mis-uttering of the verses made by myself? Then care to compare them with the History of Bible (including Torah).

Or you are saying that prophets' companions had altered the documents? We have their life documents, their life were seen not only by people around them but also Muslims of different backgrounds. Even if you have experience dealing with faithful Muslims, what qualities do you see in them? All of these related to our article of faith. Check back the History of Islamic development from the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) until today.

We had provided the information in this large spaces of forum. You just have to care to click on them and revise them one by one. You won't be influenced by others if you have your own strong faith and it suppose to be in conjunction with your Bible verses, "do not believe in every spirit but you have to test them" (sorry I can't provide you which verse in the Bible, you must be proficient in your own scripture). What is the method to test the spirit??? Care to enlight us? What is the qualities of prophets and G-d messengers taught in Christianity? Our articles of Faith came from Holy Quran itself in the beginning chapters. They were concluded in the Hadiths which is the interpretation of the verses by the archangel Gabriel (pbuh).

We do not have Church Fathers in Islam to set a Dogma. We can gradually think ourselves through the knowledge we acquired. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is our prophet, not a Church Father. Who is the prophet of Christians because Jesus is G-d for you? He is not a prophet then. Must be other person holding the role of prophet. Yet we won't be afraid if we are confident that we are in the true side, there is a saying, "Courageous because we are in the True side". I do not say Muslims are true, or Christians are wrong, but when I see what Orientalists usually from Western countries with Imperialism power always trying to deflect everything that they heard from Muslim, also by asking questions instead of providing their own basis teachings. We are not afraid in the term providing information to others because the basic things in our religion is standard. Shiites only exist after Ali (G-d be please with him). Muslim who had the standard belief since our prophet (pbuh) time exist since today when I post this post.

Why can't Christians specify what is their teaching in more specific terms? We want to see clearly what exactly is their view of G-d. Whether He is One, Three, One in Three, Three in One, Divisible or not? He antromorph himself into creatures? He is a creature or a G-d? What is Christians view about prophets? Are the Church Fathers their prophets even the previous prophets like Abraham (pbuh), Moses (pbuh), Noah (pbuh), David (pbuh), and others are not as correct as them in viewing G-d since Church fathers too got the revelation from G-d (Jesus??)? I can't even understand Christians thinking about G-d divinity or who is exactly the G-d post-Nicean councils although I know certain basic things about them. I can understand Hindus more than Christians today.

With Love

[coddles76]

I dont care to hear about how much superior you think you and your religion is, I just stated that troughout the ages documents become unreliable,thats it. And you can hardly use ''Oral tradition'' to prove the quoran is reliable, ever played a game of telephone?

Just like I said, regardless of the fact that it is written on skin or bones or that it is said to be recited a certain numbers of times a day or that it is said to be written by the time of the prophet, time= unreliable documents, this goes for the Bible AND the quran, thats all. we cant be 100% sure that the text is reliable, pherhaps it is ''more'' reliable than the bible to some extent but thats all, Its pretty obvious according to me, a Doctor should understand this.

Regards.

Seems like the truth is causing a bit of frustration for you, Maybe you should allow for your heart and mind to slowly open and turn that frustration into understanding or atleast acceptance.

[memories]

Peace,

Then you are saying the person Muhammad (pbuh) altered the Quran? I guess that I don't have to lecture to you about the qualities possessed by prophets and holy messengers of G-d in Islam.

Or you are saying that prophets' companions had altered the documents? We have their life documents, their life were seen not only by people around them but also Muslims of different backgrounds. Check back the History of Islamic development from the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) until today.

We had provided the information in this large spaces of forum. You just have to care to click on them and revise them one by one. You won't be influenced by others if you have your own strong faith and it suppose to be in conjunction with your Bible verses, "do not believe in every spirit but you have to test them" (sorry I can't provide you which verse in the Bible, you must be proficient in your own scripture). What is the method to test the spirit??? Care to enlight us? What is the qualities of prophets and G-d messengers taught in Christianity? Our articles of Faith came from Holy Quran itself in the beginning chapters. They were concluded in the Hadiths which is the interpretation of the verses by the archangel Gabriel (pbuh).

We do not have Church Fathers in Islam to set a Dogma. We can gradually think ourselves through the knowledge we acquired. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is our prophet, not a Church Father. Who is the prophet of Christians because Jesus is G-d for you? He is not a prophet then. Must be other person holding the role of prophet.

With Love

Errr, this is sooo exasperating, I have neither the patience or the time to answer you, like I stated earlier these questionning about who is a prophet and what role did he have and if this is like ''this'' it cant be like ''that'' who did what, ''what was the color of Sauls shorts''

This is what I call washing the outside of the cup but not the inside, do you know what this means? these are all pointless debates about useless information,

This is what I think: Love! and do what you like! Love your enemy like thyself, do onto others what you want them to do to you. the rest is all technicalitys its pointless to focus on these technicalitys rather than on the Important values: Love, generosity, Pardonning one and other. The rest is POINTLESS! and frankly gives me a headache.... Thats why Il never be a muslim, to much cup washing.

Seems like the truth is causing a bit of frustration for you, Maybe you should allow for your heart and mind to slowly open and turn that frustration into understanding or atleast acceptance.

What?? Im the one with a closed heart and mind?? allow me another chuckle aha! aha! :D I have a very open mind, and If you look at some of my recent posts you will find this to be so.

With love my friend.

[coddles76]

Errr, this is sooo exasperating, I have neither the patience or the time to answer you, like I stated earlier these questionning about who is a prophet and what role did he have and if this is like ''this'' it cant be like ''that'' who did what, ''what was the color of Sauls shorts''

This is what I call washing the outside of the cup but not the inside, do you know what this means? these are all pointless debates about useless information,

This is what I think: Love! and do what you like! Love your enemy like thyself, do onto others what you want them to do to you. the rest is all techicalitys Focusing on these technicalitys rather than on the Important values: Love, generosity, Pardonning one and other. The rest is POINTLESS! and frankly gives me a headache.... Thats why Il never be a muslim, to much cup washing.

With love my friend.

We don't follow what you think And thats what makes the difference between muslims and non muslims. We don't follow the conveniances which are adapted by the way Man or our own desires wants us to live. We follow the law of our creator which advised and teaches us the best way to live through life. We follow the values which are installed is us from our creator, Which is the best of teachers.

[memories]

We don't follow what you think And thats what makes the difference between muslims and non muslims. We don't follow the conveniances which are adapted by the way Man or our own desires wants us to live. We follow the law of our creator which advised and teaches us the best way to live through life. We follow the values which are installed is us from our creator, Which is the best of teachers.

Why fight natural desires? if god didnt will them he wouldnt of allowed them. they are part of the human instinct because we are in the same class as the beasts, here is a quote that is quite a propos: ''For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.'' Albert camus Do you understand what this means? try making a little effort.

[coddles76]

Why fight natural desires? if god didnt will them he wouldnt of allowed them. they are part of the human instinct because we are in the same class as the beasts, here is a quote that is quite a propos: ''For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.'' Albert camus Do you understand what this means? try making a little effort.

I'll be sure to try my best. Thanks for the advice. Your full of wisdom and knowledge.

[malayloveislam]

Errr, this is sooo exasperating, I have neither the patience or the time to answer you, like I stated earlier these questionning about who is a prophet and what role did he have and if this is like ''this'' it cant be like ''that'' who did what, ''what was the color of Sauls shorts''

This is what I call washing the outside of the cup but not the inside, do you know what this means? these are all pointless debates about useless information,

This is what I think: Love! and do what you like! Love your enemy like thyself, do onto others what you want them to do to you. the rest is all technicalitys its pointless to focus on these technicalitys rather than on the Important values: Love, generosity, Pardonning one and other. The rest is POINTLESS! and frankly gives me a headache.... Thats why Il never be a muslim, to much cup washing.

With love my friend.

Peace

What is so exasperating? Why is it bothering you to join the debate since my role in here is not to debate. I believe other respective Muslim brothers and sisters are not here to debate but to discuss. If they blindly talk about anything, why did they stated the sources? It is different from non-Muslims, when talking about Islam they blindly attack it and only give incomplete quote or stating only the quotes from the sources that they said from Muslim source.

....Your full of wisdom and knowledge.

I am not the type of person who argue or love to argue, South East Asians are peaceful people, it is still like this even when we embrace Islam from our past Hindu-Buddhism background. I never heard South East Asians conquering other nation outside this region but I had heard and listen to what my elders said about Westerner Imperialists had done in our region which they claim as the act of enlightening the world into civilization. What is this act of enlightening the world with civilization means? Isn't it also can be interpreted as arrogance when you know nothing about a certain people or region background and quickly judging it as uncivilized? This one is the quote from French Imperialist when they colonized Indo-China in South East Asia. British did the same when they had sparked shoes war with the Burmese Kingship after the British emissary refuse to take off his shoes when entering Burmese King palace. Check them in British and French History or maybe they had write it in different way.

That is why I'm asking you to specify what exactly do you belief and asking you to provide information of Christianity side for you, me and others to compare. Who knows it might help us to understand and being fair to Christians. We still wanted to be fair unlike George Sale, and that Italian, Ludovic Marraci... I can't remember his name who presented the Vatican his translation of Quran or others who wrote their Quranic translation, claiming that it is Quran itself and quickly making quick assumption and negative comments on others and then blindly followed by persons who did not read the Arabic manuscript themselves.

Yes, I can say that those values of Love, Pardoning, and others not only exist in Christianity, but also in Islam and other religions like Hinduism. Bhakta Hinduism of Vaishnavaite wing says that G-d is Love, represented by god Vishnu with his 10 avataras (incarnations), He preserves, He nurtures love in His devotee. He visits humans and incarnating in those forms in certain Yugas (Eras). His incarnation came into the world in the form of Krishna, Rama, Buddha, and others. Krishna, Rama, and Buddha were all legendary figures. I do not say that they are not exist, they exist and they are just human-being but deified as G-d Himself. I do not mean to promote pluralism here, and I am strongly a practicing Muslim but since you had focused over love so here it comes. As what I had stated in the "test each spirit..." verse, I also mean that you must hold strong with the faith that you are confident as True. Do you see any Christian saying this to Muslims? I still can't see any. But when we say something like this, you people will take it as in the meaning of a loser and shaking in faith while we are certain about our Creed.

This is what I call washing the outside of the cup but not the inside, do you know what this means?

Then wash both inside and outside the cup.

......to much cup washing

Then don't wash the cup at all, easy isn't it?

You do not have to embrace Islam, neither do I or others. It is Him who Guides, not any other person. He will not be the loser in the end if I am wrong or you are wrong. Neither do it gives any gain to Him if you are right or I am right as He will still remain as He is forever :D.

With Love

[malayloveislam]

Why fight natural desires? if god didnt will them he wouldnt of allowed them. they are part of the human instinct because we are in the same class as the beasts, here is a quote that is quite a propos: ''For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.'' Albert camus Do you understand what this means? try making a little effort.

Same class as the beast but with soul. Do you understand what soul means? I think that it is the ability to think, if I'm not wrong, or maybe others have some other views. Animals only acting with instinct, but not with soul which consists of thinking process. Human have soul and also instinct, so they think and also have bestial characteristic which is guided by religion laws. You still need law, unless if you don't really care people stealing your car, or changing the grant of your house into their name without your consent, killing your lovely pets without any good reason, or raping your relatives in front of your eyes, having sex on the middle on the road, and others.

Do you see any monkey producing philosophies like Humans? If quoting Darwin's theory. Those who produced philosophies are like Socrates and Plato as examples. Are they too monkeys? What monkeys had produced philosophy? If they had produced philosophies, their name must be carved in history whether it is underground (might be hidden) or in obvious and that must be an amazing achievement.

What do you see as opposing natural instincts? It is broad and may be subjective, state it here, no arguments. Only discussion unless if you love to debate. No wrong and no right if it is a discussion :smile:.

With Love and Best Regards

[malayloveislam]

Peace

Talking about revelation, it is related to a religion, and it also reminds me of philosophy. Philosophy has also something to do with languages. Language is the medium to utter a philosophy or to speak ones mind and thinking. Philosophy is just a thinking sparked in human mind while a Religion is revealed because it consists of the Law of Life (Nature). There must be G-d in a religion. A philosophy do not needs G-d. Philosophy came from inspiration, it is different from Revelation. In Arabic, Ilham means inspiration. But Revelation is Wahyu. Both are with terminological meanings and of course they are different.

In Islam, Quran was revealed in Arabic for us to think. People might think that Arabs are low-creatures and uncivilized but when you read back the history of Mesopotamian, Arabs are actually apart of Mesopotamian civilization. Only after prophet Ishmael (pbuh) had passed away they gradually becoming Pagans after Abdullah Ben Luhaiy had brought Baal idol from the land of Phonecians and Arabs fallen in the Ages of Darkness until prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had been sent as a prophet and His messenger to correct them back on the straight path (the Creed of One G-d of the time of prophet Abraham). Prophet Abraham (pbuh) had also posed questions not only to his idolater father (Terah, Aazar, or whatever name he is referred to), his idolater community, and the Babylonian King but he also had asked himself the questions which one is G-d until G-d Himself guided him and revealed to him the revelation that He wishes prophet Abraham (pbuh) to know.

Hebrew name only sparked as a dialect of Mesopotamian civilization during the time of Joseph (pbuh). Where is the civilization first discovered by the Academicians? What is this has to do with Arabic? This is how we think, by posing sensible questions. Or maybe it is subjective on how we think? Everything started from Listening, Recitation, Memorization, Encoding, Reading, and Thinking thus sparked Understanding. There are Wisdom in G-d acts, He is boundless unlike creatures.

Peace and Love to all fellow humans

[malayloveislam]

:sl:

well you are doing a good deed no matter how you slice it and we are certainly glad to have you aboard..
incidentally, have you read the book 'The history Of Quranic text' by Dr. M.M Al-Azami?

it might be of great interest to you, as it levels some of the arguments orientalists have about the lack of christian presence in Arabia which made it allegedly easier for Islam to infiltrate..
He deals quite well with it from a historical perspective as well -- given the two christian and few Jewish tribes in Makkah....

If you haven't already read it, I think you might deeply enjoy it.. I am only a quarter of the way done, and I find it to be well sourced and excellent..

I have to be getting to bed now because I need to be up early, but thank you so much for an excellent read.

waslaam 3lykoum wr wb

:sl:

I had never yet encounter the book but I have heard the name of the book writer, he is quite famous. I would love to read it and I will try to find them in the libraries, or if can't i'll just buy it online :D.

Every people have their own ways in dealing with questions whether it is in the intention to seek knowledge or in other intentions. Do not have to care about what others think because they never think too about what they had done to others. I also had read Ahmad Deedat (may G-d bless his soul) was mocked by the Catholic Priest Candidates from a Seminary when he worked as a shop keeper in South Africa that makes him open up the "Bible" himself and counter back. If the priests did not mock him, will he counter attack back or care to open up the "Bible"? Of course this is also in G-d Divine destiny.

It is not wrong when we defend ourselves. We will be questioned back in front of G-d on the reason why we did not defend ourselves while we are living? I am also getting knowledge from your posts and Subhanallah I get it even more than when I ask Christians of several different sects in real life. That is why I am posing the questions on what is their basis Creed, not to mock them as I wanted to know from which sources they get things related to their Creed including the Revelation. Are they believing Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet too or just a G-d because I am still confuse till now. I can understand Hinduism better but not Christian. Like a member and the guest of this forum said, it always giving me headache because the Creed is also related to Revelation :uhwhat.

Christians or Jews might be puzzled that Muslims are actually very faithful even it is haram (prohibited by G-d) to insult holy prophets in any form such as false allegations to them. We believe in the prophets are all bringing the same message of One G-d worth to be worshiped and it is one of our 6 basic Creeds. We believe in Abraham (pbuh), Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh) the same as we belief in Muhammad (pbuh). Muhammad (pbuh) is the last messenger for this age near dooms day. We do not know when is the dooms day and we cannot speculate when it is because it is only G-d knows, it is wrong to talk about the things that we do not have any certain knowledge. We always have to speak with the guidance of scripture (Quran), not merely talking without any basis.

Muslims are actually peaceful people but many had deceived them with different intentions which are only known to them. They try to use swords but it can't change anything, bombs too won't change anything, even when they try to use Academic approaches by questioning about the scriptures, and it bites them again when we ask them about how is their scripture being revealed and to whom it was revealed...

I also wanted to know from their sources not only from others as to be fair to them. As in Islam we have those sciences that deal with the Quranic knowledge. How about Christians? There are many non-Muslims trying to convert Muslims particularly in my country, and they only successful in deceiving those who had not read the Quran, the Hadiths and those who do not practicing the Orders of G-d such as Solah, Saum, etc with pure heart and also those who are not living according to the Sunnah of prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Islam is spread on the basis of One G-d, Sincerity, and the guidance from the Quran and Sunnah. My sister had just made a Hindu girl interested in Islam solely by displaying a constant akhlak (Moral), which is the practice of the second pillar of Islam, and now alhamdulillah she is a Muslim without we have to ask her questions about her Creed like I ask our Christian friends in the forum.

I do not also ask Christian friends to be Muslims, because being a Muslim needs sincerity, not only in the oral speech. It is not my power to open up others' heart because I am just His humble slave. I can only pray to Him to Guide our friends. G-d is the One who will open up the heart of others including myself as He is the One who is Powerful over everything. Even if G-d do not want me to revert than I might still be a Hindu-Buddhist in silence. My parents do not know about this. 5 years ago, I even had kept Hinduism and Buddhism Mantras with the Puranas that I read everyday under my bed beside reading the devotional stories of god and goddess in Hinduism and the tales of Buddha. Now I had return back to Islam and learning back everything about Islam from the root. I thank G-d and grateful to Him over my life, as He had saved me earlier before I die. It is not an easy process. It is G-d who Guides me to revert back to Islam where the thinking process and comparisons involved. G-d will also Guide others or simply letting them in Ignorance when they do not have any efforts to seek knowledge and think.

Answering back the allegations is also among the ways of introducing Islam, also providing information from quoted sources. You had actually done both, because you had stated the sources like what academicians and real scholars always do. I noticed that non-Muslims never did this to be fair to Islam. Islam won't being successful if spread through worldly materials or intention and sometimes defending ourselves is a measure to protect the Words of G-d (G-d's orders) which does not pollute the Love of G-d. Christians particularly form West with imperialism intention had converted many people in Indonesia, and the Philippines, but not of those who had already embraced Islam. Except those who are in the Philippines where the Northern Kingdom Manila was forced to embrace Christianity by the Spaniards (with Sword and Guns). We need to understand what is the spirit of Salam (Peace) in Islam, it is also a prayer not merely a greeting as Hi, Hello, How do you do. Peace is also related to Love. When Peace exists then Love may survive.

Peace and with Love

[Grace Seeker]

malayloveislam, pardon the interruption in your other conversation, but I thought I might go back to discuss one of your previous posts as it relates to the actual topic of this thread:

Through what I had read, I can conclude that Paul taught the dogma of Trinity and the Original Sin of human-being, which needs Salvation from the blood of god Jesus.

I cannot speculate about Jesus (pbuh) had taught this and I can not speculate that the 12 disciples also taught this because I did not finish yet reading the Roman Bible....

So, I would say that it is Paul, and later dogmatized by Church Fathers. Capital "F" because they are taking the role of G-d in setting legal Dogma for the faithful. In Roman Catholicism, Fathers can listen to the sin and forgiving the sins of sinful human-being after they say "repent!" and the person confirmed, "I repent". Thus, they may be G-d or maybe prophets sent revelation by G-d to inform that the sin of the person who admitting sins in the church. I might be wrong or might be right.

I agree that Paul did teach ideas that formed foundational ideas for what would latter be termed the Doctrine of the Trinity. You youself state that you cannot speculate about Jesus or his disciples as you haven't finished reading the Bible. So, that leaves us with two different issues to discuss.

1) Since Jesus and the disciples preceeded Paul and since Christianity already existed as a movement which Paul joined, how does one say that just because one is able to read some things in Paul that are Christian beliefs that Paul was the founder? How can an adherent joining a sect be credited with originating that same sect?

2) Without knowledge of what it is that the disciples taught before Paul you are ready to acribe Christianities foundations to Paul. Christianity is much more than just the teachings of Paul. It also in the whole idea of inclusiveness and universality for all people which Peter spoke to and which Jesus himself directed his disciples in practicing. It is a declaration of Jesus as Lord and God, a comment first found on the lips of Thomas and later affirmed by Peter. It is about proclaiming that forgiveness is found in Jesus Christ and that he functions as both high priest and sacrificial offering for those who place their faith in him, these ideas are found in the writings of John, Luke, and the anonymous author of Hebrews.

Plain and simple, if one only had the teachings of Paul on which to develop the Christian faith, then one would have a different Christianity today than we presently have. So, given that, how is it that you identify Paul as its founder?

[malayloveislam]

Peace GS,

You may deal with my posts one by one, I have no problem with that since I need knowledge about Christians and trying to be fair and just.

What I mean that I can not speculate more is about god Jesus (according to Christians) but not prophet Jesus (pbuh) because we have his stories in al-Quran and we will only talk about him from the basis of our scripture which teaches us about the Creed of G-d Oneness, not from our own ideas.

1) Do you mean a sect of Judaism or Christianity? So Christianity primarily is not a religion but a sect? Religion is broader than a sect. Thus the Law of the religion must be in accordance with the Law of Moses (pbuh). Why is it Christianity today so different than the early teachings? How similar is the sect of the time Paul joined in than with today's?

2) What had the disciples taught? In which verse of Bible, Thomas recorded as reporting that Jesus declared himself the G-d? Mind sharing it with us? Together with your scholars' interpretation of the verses? Isn't that, it is reported Barnabas wrote in his Epistle, G-d need not blood as the offering? I can accept him as a high priest. But being a sacrifice for himself? How can he be the G-d and high priest in a time? Unless if he is the incarnation of G-d, again if I think like a Hindu who believe that G-d incarnates as certain human figures and if say I want to accept or still want to validate the idea of Trinity.

Barnabas reported:

What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord I am full of whole burnt-offerings, and the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and of goats desire not, not though ye should come to be seen of Me. or who required these things at your hands? Ye shall continue no more to tread My court. If ye bring fine flour, it is in vain; incense is an abomination to Me; your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with.

(Barnabas 2: 6)

(Translation of the Epistle of Barnabas by J. B. Lightfoot)

I had actually read something about how Paul and Barnabas went on a journey to the land of the Greeks but I can't remember every detail and it is not good for me to just tell what I can't properly recall as not to make false allegations to others. It is said that Paul had taught the Greeks about G-d but using their understanding of Pagan gods and incarnations. He might be teaching about One G-d but he used an inappropriate method. The Goal does not validate the Method.

[memories]

Same class as the beast but with soul

I dare you to proove the existence of the soul, and most things youve stated are from a religious point of view, you said religious law prevents people from ahving sex in the street? we dont need religion to prevent that, law, and social norms do that job perfectly,again most of the things you have stated are from your own doctrine but do not rest on facts.

And please dont hijack the topic to turn it into some sort of a praising between you and gossamer sky.

I didnt get the whole thing about ''monkeys producing philosophy like darwin plato and socrate'' I suggest you go read a few books on the philosophers you mentionned, Id also suggest you let go some of the poetic ''tournures de phrases'' you use and correct the fact your oppinions rest entirely on your beleifs whilst a casual walk trough a mental asylum shows that beleifs don't prove anything.

Regards

[malayloveislam]

I do not have to prove anything. It won't change anything. I may not read those philosophy books as they are not prominent in my area although I had learned about them in Mantiq. I had read the books of Buddhism which believe not in G-d as responsible but rather self-enlightening. I also had read Purannas, Gitas, and Shruti literature. Thanks for the reminder, I will try to find those books and read all about them. I hope you also do the same instead of attacking others when you can't provide the answers.

I had already stated philosophy and Religion is two different things. Prove to me that Soul is not exist with statments because yes, we can't find where is the location of Soul in our body. How do you define the Soul? Is it merely breath? Not the ability to think? Yes, every creature have breath but only human thinks. We have brain and it is specified in Biology as the place where thinking process works. The bloods pumped from the Heart to the Brain. Aren't they too related? What is the level of monkey ability to think with human? Yes, monkey have brain and heart too. But can monkey speak in English? German? Sanskrit? I'm talking about Darwin because it is related to human Desire. The theory is used to validate incorrect Desires. You had stated about why opposing natural desires? I also do not get what do you actually wanted to say? Do you want to say Islam prohibits human from the pleasure of life? It does not teach that we should abandon marriage, we can marry and have children. It is adultery that is prohibited. It is not wrong in Western World I guess but not in Eastern and also in Islam. Everything must have the limit. That's it. You exceed the limit, you ruin everything.

Religion is the Way of Life. It is not like the Church and the Country being separated in France in 17th C and we do not have Church to hold our lives and our faith is not depending on others. We have the faith according to our own level of sincerity, yet our Creed over One G-d is still standard. Also we do not have Pope to control the marriage of kings or rulers of a country whether in their personal problem like marriage as in England. The knowledge of our scripture can be learned by commoners and civilians, not only by the scholars or those who are learned in religious field. Civilians can count the tithe themselves and the measurement of the tithe unlike civilian in Europe of the Dark Age who were burdened by the tithe which only the Priests in the Church knows how much is it.

Mantiq is the tool to keep mind from mistakes. More clearly, Mantiq is a science that argues about the tools and the formulas of thinking till one can use it in a manner which is safe from the false thinking. Human is the creature which will never escape from thinking. But in the moment of thinking, human always influenced by various tendencies, emotions, subjective, and others until they can't clearly think. Mantiq is an effort to correctly think and not leaving humans in confusion. To understand this, you will have to understand what is thinking?

Thinking is the process of exposing something which is mysterious (majhul or not-known before) through the usage of knowledges that we already acquired in our mind (dzann) until the majhul (hidden) became ma3loum (exposed, known).

I guess no need to lecture more over the philosophy to you since you do not need it and it won't be useful for you. You already had acquired it earlier than us. I am also now going through your "Bible" which is full of the playing of words. I had bought an "English KJV Bible" from a bookshop with blue cover published by Zondervan and with the picture of god Jesus (if it is really him) in 2006 when I befriend a Roman Catholic Christian. I bought it myself and it is not my Christian friend who gave me that. I had read them in gradual and yes, it is very burdening to read many books in it beginning from OT to NT. But I had at least being fair by reading the materials. How about you?

I previously have Hindu-Buddhism background in myself. Are you merely here to attack others' belief or what? If you want to attack it then this is not a suitable place for you because this is only on Religious Comparison. We never influence others to belief in ours'. We just provide information from our side. Why are you so furious on everyone? Are you feeling threatened? By what? Is this a form of insecurity or something? Why? You do not read your own scriptures but simply coming in the forum and attack others first with questions? And we ask you questions again. Is it wrong?

[Grace Seeker]

1) Do you mean a sect of Judaism or Christianity?

Let me begin by clearing up some definitions, I have found that people can and do use the term "sect" to mean different things by it, so I am glad you are asking about how I used it.

I did not mean it in the sense of Christianity being a splinter group within Judaism or any other organized religion, though if you were to ask me I would agree that it began as a Jewish sect that was a splinter group within Judaism. In this case, I meant only that the movement that Paul joined already existed as a group of people who adhered to a distinctive doctrine, one in which Jesus was already worshipped as both Lord and God; one in which people were already baptized in the name of Jesus; one in which forgiveness of sins was already preached in Jesus' name; one in which Jesus sacrificial death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead were already the hallmark ideas of the faith -- and all of this existing before Paul ever joined the group. So, my question is, since this group with these beliefs already existed before Paul joined it, how is it that you choose to identify Paul as its founder?

So Christianity primarily is not a religion but a sect? Religion is broader than a sect.

I think I addressed this above. The definition you present here would also be correct, but I was using one of the other definitions of the term in keeping with what I just said above.

Thus the Law of the religion must be in accordance with the Law of Moses (pbuh).

Not sure what you are referring to here. But I can say that if Christianity had seen itself as just another form of Judaism, you most certainly would be correct. But it did not see itself that way. That was the first debate within the church. It was an issue that the disciples discussed and resolved at what is termed the Council of Jerusalem. They determined that one need not become a Jew to be a Christian, and that decision has never been challenged by any subsequent Christian body.


[quote[ Why is it Christianity today so different than the early teachings? How similar is the sect of the time Paul joined in than with today's?[/quote]Since I didn't live in Paul's day or have first-hand experience from the early church, all I have to go on is what is recorded in the Bible and other writings of the early church fathers.

When I look at it there are some things that I think are significantly different: the view toward slavery, the roles of men and women, daily family life, the administration of the sacraments, the degrees of definition for ecclesiastical authority. Whole books are written on each of these things. But for all of the controversy one can stir up on any one of these topics, they are really miniscule compared to the big central tenents of the faith which I think have remained the same across the generations of time. The reason for both the changes and the things that have remained the same is, I believe, because a Christian (and therefore Christianity) is intended to be in the world and yet not of the world. So, just as Islam has evolved to accept the things of the world in having the call to prayer broadcast over loudspeaker, so the way the institution of the Church functions in today's society is different than it was in its inception. But I believe that our core beliefs are the same.

2) What had the disciples taught? In which verse of Bible, Thomas recorded as reporting that Jesus declared himself the G-d? Mind sharing it with us? Together with your scholars' interpretation of the verses?

I did not say that Thomas reported that Jesus declared himself God, I said that Thomas declared him to be God. You can find Thomas' reference to Jesus as both Lord and God in John 20:28 "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' "

As for commentators' comments, I think the verse speaks for itself, but since you asked here are a few:

Thomas confessed Jesus as his Lord and God (see ref. j). If this had not been a true confession, Jesus would not have commended him for believing. Once again we have another witness that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. --Andrew Wommack

Thomas was ashamed of his unbelief, and cried out, My Lord and my God. He spoke with affection, as one that took hold of Christ with all his might; "My Lord and my God." Sound and sincere believers, though slow and weak, shall be graciously accepted of the Lord Jesus. It is the duty of those who read and hear the gospel, to believe, to embrace the doctrine of Christ, and that record concerning him. --Matthew Henry

Thomas now not only acknowledges him to be the Lord, as he had done before, and to be risen, as his fellow disciples had affirmed, but also confesses his Godhead, and that more explicitly than any other had yet done. And all this he did without putting his hand upon his side. --John Wesley


Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God [has truly risen from the dead]”) as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God”) or as vocatives (“My Lord and my God”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. --W. Hall Harris III

A Note on the significance of Thomas’ confession:
With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: the Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and we have come full circle from 1:1, where the Evangelist had introduced the reader to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM…”. By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both LORD (kuvrio", used by the LXX to translate hwhy) and GOD (qeov", used by the LXX to translate <hla). --also by W. Hall Harris III

And since you asked about differences between now and the early church, here is a a commentary on that same verse by one of the early church father, Saint Cyril of Alexandria:

He [Thomas] that had shortly before been slack in the duty of faith was now eager to profess it. and in a short time his fault was wholly cured. For after an interval of only eight days the hindrances to his faith were removed by Christ, Who showed unto him the print of the nails and His wounded Side. But, perhaps, someone will ask the question: "Tell me why did the minds of the holy disciples carry out so rigid an inquiry, and so careful a scrutiny? For would not the sight of the Lord's Body, the features of His Face, and the measure of His Stature, have sufficed to prove that He had indeed risen from the dead, and to secure His recognition?" What do we reply? The inspired disciples were not free from doubt, although they had seen the Lord. For they thought that He was not in very truth the same as He Who of old had lived and dwelt among them, and had hung upon the Cross, but rather that He was a Spirit, cunningly fashioned like unto our Saviour's Image, and simulating the features of the form which they knew. For they fell into this delusion not without some apparent excuse, as He miraculously entered when the doors were closed; in spite of the fact that a body of coarse earthy mould requires a hole through which it can pass, and necessitates the aperture of the door to correspond in width with the size of the body. For this cause our Lord Jesus Christ, greatly to our profit, laid bare His Side to Thomas, and exposed the wounds on His Person, through his agency giving adequate proof to all. For though of Thomas alone is recorded the saying: Except I shall put my hands and see the prints of the nails, and put my hand into His Side, I will not believe, yet was the charge of lack of faith common to them all; and we shall find that the minds of the other disciples were not free from perplexity, though they said unto the holy Thomas: We have seen the Lord. And that what we say does not err from the truth we may easily perceive by what the Divine Luke tells us: As they spake these things, He stood in the midst of them, that is, of course, Christ, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reasonings arise in your hearts? See My Hands and My Feet, that it is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having. And when He had said this, He showed them His Hands and His Feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them. You see how the thought of unbelief is found lurking, not in the blessed Thomas alone, but that the minds of the other disciples were afflicted with a kindred disease. For, lo and behold! seeing that their faith wavered even after the sight of the wounds upon the Cross, He thought it right to convince them by another act, in nowise suited to a spirit, but specially appropriate to earthly bodies and the nature of flesh. For He ate the fish that was brought unto Him, or the portion of one. For when no mark at all of corruption any longer remained after the Resurrection of His holy Flesh, because He lived again to incorruption, and when it was incredible that His Body stood in need of food as heretofore, He yet showed unto them the print of the nails, and did not refuse to partake of food, in order that He might establish the great mystery of the Resurrection, and cause faith in it to spring up in the souls of us all. He does acts wholly alien to the nature of spirits. For how, and in what way, could the prints of nails, and the traces of wounds, and participation in bodily food, be found to exist in a naked spirit unconnected with flesh, to which all these things are suitable by the law of its being and the conditions under which it exists? In order, then, that none might think that Christ rose again a mere spirit, or an impalpable body, shadowy and ethereal, to which some give the name of spiritual, but that the selfsame body that was sown in corruption, as Paul saith, might be believed to have risen again, He openly did acts suitable to a palpable human form. What we said at first, however, namely, that the blessed disciple did not so much lack faith owing to infirmity of judgment, but rather was affected in this way by excess of joy, will not be wide of the mark. For we have heard the saying of the blessed Luke concerning all the others: And while they disbelieved for joy and wondered. It was wonder, therefore, that made the disciples slow to be convinced. But as henceforward there was no excuse for unbelief, as they saw with their own eyes, the blessed Thomas accordingly unflinchingly confessed his faith in Him, saying: My Lord and my God. For we must all confess that it follows of a surety that He That is Lord by Nature and Ruler over all is also God, just as also universal dominion and the glory of sovereignty is clearly seen to appertain to the living God.

Observe, too, that when he says My Lord and my God, he uses the article to show that there was One Lord and One God. For he does not say without the qualification of the article, My Lord and my God, to prevent any one from imagining that he called Him Lord or God as he might have done one of ourselves or of the holy angels. For there are gods many and lords many, in this sense, in heaven and on earth, as the wise Paul has taught us; but rather he recognises Him as, in a special sense, the One Lord and God, as begotten of the Father, Who is by Nature Lord and God, when he says, My Lord and my God; and, what is a still greater indication of the truth, the Saviour heard His disciple saying this, and saw that he rested in the firm conviction that He was, in fact, the Lord and God, and thought it not right to rebuke him. Christ, then, approved his faith, and with justice. And you may easily see that what I say is true. For to him that was possessed of this faith He says, at the end of the Gospel, as unto the rest: Go ye and make disciples of all the nations. And if He bids him who was thus minded teach all nations, and appointed him to instruct the world in His mysteries, He wishes us to have a like faith. For He is, in fact, Lord and God by Nature, even when Incarnate Man. For observe that the disciple, when he had touched His Hands, and Feet, and Side, made unto Him this confession of faith, not severing Emmanuel into a duality of Sons, but recognising Him as one and the same in the Flesh, for Jesus Christ is One Lord, according to the Scripture.

Isn't that, it is reported Barnabas wrote in his Epistle, G-d need not blood as the offering? I can accept him as a high priest. But being a sacrifice for himself? How can he be the G-d and high priest in a time? Unless if he is the incarnation of G-d, again if I think like a Hindu who believe that G-d incarnates as certain human figures and if say I want to accept or still want to validate the idea of Trinity.

Barnabas reported:

What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord I am full of whole burnt-offerings, and the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and of goats desire not, not though ye should come to be seen of Me. or who required these things at your hands? Ye shall continue no more to tread My court. If ye bring fine flour, it is in vain; incense is an abomination to Me; your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with.

(Barnabas 2: 6)

(Translation of the Epistle of Barnabas by J. B. Lightfoot)

I had actually read something about how Paul and Barnabas went on a journey to the land of the Greeks but I can't remember every detail and it is not good for me to just tell what I can't properly recall as not to make false allegations to others. It is said that Paul had taught the Greeks about G-d but using their understanding of Pagan gods and incarnations. He might be teaching about One G-d but he used an inappropriate method. The Goal does not validate the Method.

I can't find the text you quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas. Reading J.B. Lightfoot's translation of it as found in Early Christian Writings, the verse you cite, 2:6, reads as follows:

Barnabas 2:6
These things therefore He annulled, that the new law of our Lord
Jesus Christ, being free from the yoke of constraint, might have its
oblation not made by human hands.

Perhaps you can give me the source for you translation.


But I'm not sure that you need to refer to a non-canonical writing, as the thought you were looking for as actually found in the Bible itself:

Amos 5

21 "I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.

22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.

This does not mean that God did not want the people of Israel to make sacrifices to him, but that they needed to do it with the right heart. Going through the motions without the proper attitude meant nothing. However, I don't know of any place in scripture or even the non-canonical literature of either the Jewish apocrypha or other early Christian writings in which the concept of blood sacrifice is repudiated. However, the author of Hebrews (again not Paul, isn't that interesting) does suggest that because Christ's sacrificial offering is a perfect sacrifice that there is now no more need for blood sacrifices, because the atonement has been made once and for all in Jesus' offering.

Hebrews 10

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "[a] 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Note [a] -- this section of "The Letter to the Hebrews" is quoting from Psalm 40:6-8, the Greek Septuagint translation of the passage and not the original Hebrew text. The "Hebrews" that the author was writing to were the Greek-speaking Jews of the disaspora who were becoming followers of Jesus.


I find it an interesting theory that you propose regarding pagan elements in Christianity coming from Hindu culture. It is true that the Greek culture was actually more dominant than the Roman culture, even though Roman ruled by military might, the culture and language of the time that dominated everywhere was that which Alexander the Great had spread all the way to India. Plus there was plenty of paganism within Greek culture on its own prior to that, and most certainly Paul was willing to do pretty much anything to win a convert. But I do think this stops short of changing his message. If Paul had been willing to change his message to get a hearing, then he would not have had some of the problems that he did have, which were almost always a result of saying something that people did NOT want to hear. As for his journeying with Barnabas into the land of the Greeks, you are quite right. They travelled together quite extensively in the Greek world; you can read of their journeys in the biblical book of Acts, chapters 13-15.

[malayloveislam]

Thanks so much GS,

I will read and analyze your post in detail first beside referring the "Bible", of course I will have also checking my scripture and also those scholars commentary because certain things that I'm still not clear with. I should have at least read first and then ask others question. So, it won't be wasting the precious time of everyone.

Regarding Abrahamic rites of Qurban or Qurbaana (Sacrifice) that had been mentioned. We Muslim do celebrate Eidul Adha which is the Feast of Qurban in the month of Zulhijjah where we slaughter camel, cow, ram and goat for the poors. It is as the meaning for the poors to taste the meat because they can't always buy them in daily life. Of course everyone who are performing Qurban should be sincere and the Qurban is not for G-d because He does not need them. He asked human to be sincere in performing every religious duty. This ritual traced back its origin since the time of prophet Abraham (pbuh) was ordered by G-d through revelation in the form of dreams to slaughter his beloved son Ishmael (pbuh). It is actually a trial for both Abraham (pbuh) and Ishmael (pbuh) and not really intended for him to really slaughter his son. This had happened because Abraham loves Ishmael so much. So, G-d tested him whether to choose between his faith or his beloved son. As to cut this simple, G-d sent an angel to replace Ishmael (pbuh) with a ram and G-d is pleased because both Abraham (pbuh) and Ishmael (pbuh) are sincere. They had brought back the meat of the ram they slaughtered. I do not know if this too appear in OT. I will try checking it first.

The quotes from the Epistle too apply for human sacrifice because when we check back in certain Hindu Tantri tradition like the worship of Kali (an incarnation of goddess Durga and goddess Parvati), there is human sacrifice to satisfy the thirst of G-d on blood. G-d is represented by Kali when He is in Wrath. When G-d is in Wrath, the Earthquake happened, anything bad may happen, so they have to sacrifice something for Him. This is a view of certain group in Hinduism. I'm sorry for Hinduism example but I know more about Hinduism as my past is lingering around it. I'm sure other places too have the ritual of human sacrifice like what I heard in Egypt during the reign of a Muslim caliph, I can't recall his name... when the River Nile is dried out due to drought season. The people there offering human sacrifice which is a virgin lady.

I'm so sorry about the technical mistake in my quote of the Epistle of Barnabas. It is in 2:5, not 2:6 and the translation is from the same translator. My bad and I'm sorry.

It is also stated in Ghandara Inscriptions that Buddhism had been spread to Greek land after the Conquest of Alexander of Macedonia. I will check them back after all. There are also Buddhist Greek kingdoms in North-West of ancient India. Even there are Greeks that married with the daughters of Brahmins in ancient India and learning the Hindu philosophy. Their tribal clan too being recorded in Manusmriti the Hindu Law Code. This is long before Christ Era. That is why I think the idea of three god-heads is quite sensible because Hindus happened to introduce this concept earlier than in the Christ Era. Hindus too believing in the Highest Power which can't be reached by Human mind. So they had divided it into three to explain the concept and the functions of G-d too make it easier for civilians of different backgrounds to comprehend.

[malayloveislam]

Peace GS,

I had analyzed your post and you did your best in explaining about your religion to me. I am always not clear about Christians because there are so many groups in Christianity yet certain concepts seems like in Hinduism but not as clear as in Hinduism itself. I really appreciate your efforts. I would only like to present my personal view, nobody have to take them as arguments, I'm just discussing. Differences always can't be avoided and that is not wrong at all for me.

When I look at it there are some things that I think are significantly different: the view toward slavery, the roles of men and women, daily family life, the administration of the sacraments, the degrees of definition for ecclesiastical authority. Whole books are written on each of these things. But for all of the controversy one can stir up on any one of these topics, they are really miniscule compared to the big central tenents of the faith which I think have remained the same across the generations of time. The reason for both the changes and the things that have remained the same is, I believe, because a Christian (and therefore Christianity) is intended to be in the world and yet not of the world. So, just as Islam has evolved to accept the things of the world in having the call to prayer broadcast over loudspeaker, so the way the institution of the Church functions in today's society is different than it was in its inception. But I believe that our core beliefs are the same.

I do believe our core belief is the same, maybe the way of how Christians view the concept of G-d is not the same with us. We do not use any theology concept that divides G-d into other entity. He is solely Him. He can not be represented by any other creation because our basic Creed had taught us that Creator and creations are two different things. I understand after few struggles Christianity had undergo several changes and that must be happened due to the absence of Jesus (pbuh). About the concept of god-heads, it just takes us a simple mathematics:

One from three is three
1 x 3 = 3

Three from one is still three
3 x 1 = 3

While,
One from one will only be one
1 x 1 = 1

I'm not really good in maths and always fail my maths but this is not really difficult and really easy to understand.

Furthermore in our basic Creed, we know the role of the prophets, and the G-d messengers which also includes the person whose name is Jesus (pbuh). The prophets and G-d holy messengers are all bringing the same message of Tawheed (Oneness of G-d). Might be Jesus divinity in Christianity is a way to glorify and to respect him as Christians main prophet just like Moses (pbuh) is the great prophet of Judaism. But it happened to be into glorifying him as a god later.

We become Muslims because we believe in prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophethood. But we were taught not to deify him. We respect our prophet (pbuh) and following his tradition (sunnah) but we should only devote ourselves to G-d. There are certain concepts that I'm not clear about Christianity that made me ask questions. I'm sincerely have no intention to defame Christians nor offending Christian friends.

The definition of Nubuwwah (prophethood) in Islam

Nabi (prophet): a man revealed by G-d with revelation but he only have the responsibility to teach the revelation to his family, relatives, and his household.

Rasul (G-d messenger): a man which is also a prophet, who was given the responsibility (annointed by G-d) to spread the message of G-d and the revelation to the whole human-being in a certain period. As for prophet Muhammad (pbuh), his revelation is valid until the doom's day.

The belief in Nabi (prophet) and Rasul (G-d messenger)

This is the third article of Muslim faith in the 6 Basic Creeds.

The verse

128. Now hath come to you a messenger from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should perish: ardently anxious is he over you: to the Believers is he most kind and merciful.

129. But if they turn away, Say (o Muhammad): "G-d sufficeth me: there is no god but He: On Him is my trust, - He the Lord of the Throne (of Glory) Supreme!"

(Translation of Surah at-Taubah (no. 9) by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

Characteristics of a Rasul (G-d messenger)

There are 4 characteristics that must be possessed by a Rasul. I had stated in my previous posts with normal human qualities like eat, drink, going to toilet, married, and etc. And other 4 characteristics that are impossible to be possessed by a Rasul.

The reasons why prophets and messengers being sent

1. Strengthening the proves and showing humans the existance of G-d
2. Showing the importance of human in the earth as the caliph (administrator)
3. Reminding human to remain on the straight path
4. As a messenger, the prophets told human about metaphysical things through revelation.

The matters that is in opposite with the concept of an-Nubuwwah (prophethood)

1. Deification of creations, prophets and G-d messengers are all human.
2. Claimants that the soul of prophets and G-d messengers may help in spiritual matters.

Concerning the quotes from Thomas about his wailing saying "my G-d and my Lord". I always come across this kind of phrases in Bible, they do not have the bracket, to show to whom the phrase is addressed to, as we know Bible had been translated into many languages from Aramaic or Greek if they are the Epistles. I think this phrase can still be interpreted. We Muslims always differentiate G-d (Alla) and Lord (Saidi, Sidi). G-d is only for Him, Lord can also being used in addressing humans. When you say a Land Lord, it means a man who possess a piece of land or any property on the land. It also means the Possessor of the whole Earth (G-d). So, it depends on which meanings you wanted to accept. If we interprete Surah al-Ikhlas according to the interpretation that we wanted to accept, it would be, Qul huwallahu Ahad (Say, that he is G-d the one). It means what? Say to whom? Is it means Muhammad (pbuh) is a god? That is why we have strict interpretation science for Quran.

[Grace Seeker]

I'll just respond to this one portion of your post for the moment.

About the concept of god-heads, it just takes us a simple mathematics:

One from three is three
1 x 3 = 3

Three from one is still three
3 x 1 = 3

While,
One from one will only be one
1 x 1 = 1

I'm not really good in maths and always fail my maths but this is not really difficult and really easy to understand.

I agree with your math. What I don't agree with is that your math correctly illustrates Christianity. 1 X 3 is a statement saying that you have one three different times. Multiplication is just a fast way of adding. So 1 +1 +1 = 1 X 3.

But Christianity doesn't say that we have one three different times. We categorically affirm that there is just 1 God, but that same one God can be found not three different times, but in three different ways. Whether we are talking about God the Father, or God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, we are not adding additional gods nor are we adding partners for God, but we are still talking about the one and the same God who created the universe and all that is in it, who was worshipped by our common spriitual father Abraham, who Jews believe spoke to Moses, who Muslims believe sent the Qur'an to Muhammad, and whom I believe that Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike all worship. In other words when Christians speak of the Trinity mathematically it is not 1 X 3, nor is it 3 X 1, nor is it even 1 + 1 + 1. The more correct way to express the Christian belief is to say that we have one God raised to the third power. Or, in the symbolic language of mathematics, we have 1 X 1 X 1, and that, as you know, is still just 1.

[i love allah]

I understand that you see present day Christianity as different from what you think that Jesus taught. But I don't understand why Paul gets charged with making that change and not Jesus' disciples? After all, Paul was originally a hater of Christianity as taught by the disicples and had to be converted to it. And the thing that he hated was that the disciples were lifting up Jesus as Lord and worshipping Jesus as they did God. It was the disciples, not Paul, who first claimed that salvation was found in no other name than Jesus, a clear violation of the the 1st Commandment as far as Paul was concerned. Paul only became a Christian when he was convinced that Christians were not breaking the first commandment.

salaam borthers and sisters
finally a post i can really answer
i am a former chritian, i reveted 4 months ago alhamdullihah!
so, if u actually read the new testement of the bible, you will surprisingly find out that NOT ONCE is there written jesus saying that he should be worshipped or prayed to!that all he was capable of doing was through the heavenly father,Allah.
after Jesus pbuh, ppl came up with what i can only compare to what islam calls hadith, ppl saying what they heard jesus say and do, some of it was correct, some tampered with and some completely made up.
then came paul, who didnt like the way the jewish scriptures described God(stahferallah!!!) saying that God was being described as too cruel.
so paul who was born about 2ooyrs after jesus pbuh death , took out what he didnt like, added what was interesting to him, diregarded some books and preferred others.
you should really watch this if you want more information. it is actually quit interesting, it helped me to know how to answer ppl who try to argue that the bible is the word of God. most christains dont even know who made the bible and how it was put together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PQ6_0gJUE

as for christianty, not even Jesus pbuh taught christanity, beacuse christians worship jesus and jesus phub never asked for such a thing. you should also watch this, one of ahmed deedat's debates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PQ6_0gJUE

hope i helped
salaam
ommtalel is offline Report Post Reply With Quote

[Grace Seeker]

then came paul, who didnt like the way the jewish scriptures described God(stahferallah!!!) saying that God was being described as too cruel.
so paul who was born about 2ooyrs after jesus pbuh death , took out what he didnt like, added what was interesting to him, diregarded some books and preferred others.

I don't think this is a correct characterization of Paul at all. But I am willing to listen. I am particularly interested in how you have dated Paul. Please, show me evidence of even one of your assertions.

[Clover]

I have always thought that Christianity was founded by Jesus and his disciples.

[Follower]

Paul lived ca 5 - 67 AD.

[Zafran]

Paul lived ca 5 - 67 AD.

so thats when the potential founder was born.

[Follower]

I was correcting the statement - 'so paul who was born about 2ooyrs after jesus pbuh death'

[i love allah]

I understand that you see present day Christianity as different from what you think that Jesus taught. But I don't understand why Paul gets charged with making that change and not Jesus' disciples? After all, Paul was originally a hater of Christianity as taught by the disicples and had to be converted to it. And the thing that he hated was that the disciples were lifting up Jesus as Lord and worshipping Jesus as they did God. It was the disciples, not Paul, who first claimed that salvation was found in no other name than Jesus, a clear violation of the the 1st Commandment as far as Paul was concerned. Paul only became a Christian when he was convinced that Christians were not breaking the first commandment.

The reason we know it wasn't the disciples who made the change is what God says in 3:52-53, "When Jesus felt rejection from them (the Jews), he said, 'Who are my supporters for God?' The disciples said, 'We are the supporters of God. We believe in God. Bear witness that we are Muslims. Our Lord, we have believed in what You sent down and followed the Messenger. Register us among the witnesses."

It was the disciples and their followers who kept struggling to keep the faith pure and they were thrown in pits of fire and fed to lions for their effort. May God accept their sacrifice and reward them handsomely for it.

[Grace Seeker]

Thank-you for an a-ha moment.

If I understand you correctly, since the Qur'an reports that the disciples asked to be registered among the witness for the events as the Qur'an presents them, then if any other source of writing suggests that the disciples were doing something different that what the Qur'an says, those other sources (be they the Bible, contemporary historians, or writings of the disciples themselves) must by definition be wrong as a result of some type of corruption: the altering of manuscripts, the works being forgeries, using/creating fictious historical accounts or some other way in which error is introduced to them.

Do I understand the essence of what you are saying?


And if the disciples were true followers of Jesus and the NT record substantially disputes what is in the Qur'an, then since the disciples didn't fall away from sharing the message that the Qur'an presents Jesus as bringing, the next most logical person to have been able to make such a significant change in Jesus' teaching becomes Paul -- especially since about half of the NT is purported to have been written by him.

[Follower]

Paul was alive during Jesus' time and presecuting the Christians.
Acts 7
54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 8
1And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

Amazing that GOD would use Paul to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.

[YusufNoor]

Thank-you for an a-ha moment.

If I understand you correctly, since the Qur'an reports that the disciples asked to be registered among the witness for the events as the Qur'an presents them, then if any other source of writing suggests that the disciples were doing something different that what the Qur'an says, those other sources (be they the Bible, contemporary historians, or writings of the disciples themselves) must by definition be wrong as a result of some type of corruption: the altering of manuscripts, the works being forgeries, using/creating fictious historical accounts or some other way in which error is introduced to them.

Do I understand the essence of what you are saying?


And if the disciples were true followers of Jesus and the NT record substantially disputes what is in the Qur'an, then since the disciples didn't fall away from sharing the message that the Qur'an presents Jesus as bringing, the next most logical person to have been able to make such a significant change in Jesus' teaching becomes Paul -- especially since about half of the NT is purported to have been written by him.

what half of the NT has Paul written?

[Grace Seeker]

what half of the NT has Paul written?

Not according to most of those "scholars" you like to quote from. They would probably tell you that the majority of letters attributed to Paul were supposedly written by someone else.

[suffiyan007]

Paul absolutely...because Jesus is the tauhid religion bringing from Adam A.S...same religion that Maryam daughter of omran(imran),Zulaika and zakaria....jesus is the same religion of Bani ishmael(ismail). and ibrahim....Church and song hymns and statue all is made by paul...all is the statue a is created by people mind to craft the statue....how do we know the look of Jesus,mary and etc?...only Gods know only the people of the prophets centuries knew how they look...prophets face is like a light...no one can know the look...even in the islamic Quran or Books never draw a single potrayed of the prophets.

[YusufNoor]

Originally Posted by YusufNoor View Post
what half of the NT has Paul written?

Not according to most of those "scholars" you like to quote from. They would probably tell you that the majority of letters attributed to Paul were supposedly written by someone else.

tsk tsk tsk, you can't even say what books, eh?

well, i thought that you were here to answer questions about your religion. you seem to have lost the ability to answer questions directly!

you're none to keen on discussing your Holy Book. why? are you ashamed of it or do you lack the knowledge?

what then, is your purpose here?

[Grace Seeker]

tsk tsk tsk, you can't even say what books, eh?

well, i thought that you were here to answer questions about your religion. you seem to have lost the ability to answer questions directly!

you're none to keen on discussing your Holy Book. why? are you ashamed of it or do you lack the knowledge?

what then, is your purpose here?

I thought you were making a sarcastic comment. Was I supposed to believe that one who reads Christian "scholars" in order to debate others has a serious question about something as elemental as what books Paul has written?

For those who don't know, and for Yusuf who does but appears to like to play games, the accepted books of the New Testament, with those purported to have been written by Paul in CAPITAL LETTERS, are:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
ROMANS
1 & 2 CORINTHIANS
GALATIANS
EPHESIANS
PHILIPPIANS
COLOSSIANS
1 & 2 THESSALONIANS
1 & 2 TIMOTHY
TITUS
PHILEMON
Hebrews
James
1 & 2 Peter
1, 2, & 3 John
Jude
Revelation

(For Zafran, who seemed to not know this in another thread, it is the first four books, AND ONLY the first four books -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- which are termed Gospels by Christians. None of the books on this list are accepted by Jews; they do not recognize a New Testament and an Old Testament, but only consider what Christians call the Old Testament to be scripture.)

[suffiyan007]

Thus, even the book of Gospels of jesus that u stated, but your information...
that inside it stated that Jesus speaks about his death...and die for the world,to takes away the sins of the world...why should a prophet should die for the people,but the people doesn't pray to god for god forgiveness.and why christian should go to the father(priest)for confession to seek him for forgiveness and where should the pope and priesthood...so they just pray to God...for confession is that right...?a priest should teach the follower of christianity should follow what's he does....people should pray to God...for forgiveness.

[Grace Seeker]

Thus, even the book of Gospels of jesus that u stated, but your information...

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying.

[YusufNoor]

I thought you were making a sarcastic comment. Was I supposed to believe that one who reads Christian "scholars" in order to debate others

so now you think that you know what my motivation is in everything that i do? are you equating yourself with God now?

has a serious question about something as elemental as what books Paul has written?

some of those scholars have different opinions on who wrote the books assigned to Paul, you think that is some kind of game in determining what someone else's opinion is?

For those who don't know, and for Yusuf who does but appears to like to play games,

i would rather note that you play games rather than answer simple questions, you hem and haw and avoid answering at all costs! rather than pretend that you have the power of God and that you know everything, why can't you just answer questions? just because you don't like what some scholars may say, the HONEST ones discuss the defects contained in old papyri and codicii as well as in the assigning of authorship to various scripture.

the accepted books of the New Testament, with those purported to have been written by Paul in CAPITAL LETTERS, are:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
ROMANS
1 & 2 CORINTHIANS
GALATIANS
EPHESIANS
PHILIPPIANS
COLOSSIANS
1 & 2 THESSALONIANS
1 & 2 TIMOTHY
TITUS
PHILEMON
Hebrews
James
1 & 2 Peter
1, 2, & 3 John
Jude
Revelation

(For Zafran, who seemed to not know this in another thread, it is the first four books -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- which are termed Gospels by Christians. None of the books on this list are accepted by Jews; they do not recognize a New Testament and an Old Testament, but only consider what Christians call the Old Testament to be scripture.)

perhaps if you had more faith in your "books" and your religion, you could just answer questions instead of playing "avoidance" for so long. you didn't create, nor did i, the problems that exist with Christian Scripture, BUT they are there. IF you take the point of view that you will discuss/reveal only certain elements about "The Bible", then you are acting alot like the Roman Catholic Church! a true Protestant, even if Anglican, should cheerfully discuss these aspect of Scripture AND they shouldn't shake your faith.

if you think that you need to hide the flaws in order to defend your faith, then your faith is in sorry shape and you should avoid leading others until you square your faith with yourself 1st!

that being said, when did those books that you cal "the accepted books of then New Testament" become THE accepted books?

[Grace Seeker]

perhaps if you had more faith in your "books" and your religion, you could just answer questions instead of playing "avoidance" for so long. you didn't create, nor did i, the problems that exist with Christian Scripture, BUT they are there. IF you take the point of view that you will discuss/reveal only certain elements about "The Bible", then you are acting alot like the Roman Catholic Church! a true Protestant, even if Anglican, should cheerfully discuss these aspect of Scripture AND they shouldn't shake your faith.

if you think that you need to hide the flaws in order to defend your faith, then your faith is in sorry shape and you should avoid leading others until you square your faith with yourself 1st!

Yusuf, you assume too much.


I'm not avoiding any questions because of fear that I can't talk about them. But I do discriminate in my use of time. When you ask questions that I am well aware that you know the answer to, I don't take your questions seriously. When I have limited time to respond, questions that I don't think are serious questions go to the bottom of the priority list. This is not to say that you don't have reasons for your questions, perhaps to draw something out or make a point in a particular way, but I have to make decisions as to what to take time on or not take time on independent of your agenda.

I too am well aware of the process by which the Bible that is in use today evolved over time. I don't have all of the answers to when this or that book was accepted or rejected memorized and don't always have the time to research answers to questions that I don't see as relevant to what I was asking, especially when they are as easily known to you as they are to me.

Normally, I would be glad to join in your games, but this summer, at this particular point of time in my life I just don't have time. So, without dates I've already stipulated that the NT was complied over time with varying books seen as being canonical at one point in history. That list would change over history till it was eventually settled on by general consensus, a consensus that was latter conferred as established by the church at a church council.

But for precises books and dates you can look them up as well and quickly as I. I have no idea how this relates to determining who is the founder of Christianity.

[Zafran]

(For Zafran, who seemed to not know this in another thread, it is the first four books -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- which are termed Gospels by Christians. None of the books on this list are accepted by Jews; they do not recognize a New Testament and an Old Testament, but only consider what Christians call the Old Testament to be scripture.)

I know that - what thread? what did I say???

[Grace Seeker]

I know that - what thread? what did I say???

post #127 in this thread

Is that [the Gospel] the book the Jews and the christains have in common???? there is a book that both Jews and christains claim to posses yet see it in radically different ways. Historically the christains and the jews didnt see eye to eye - thats well known and heavily documented.

[Zafran]

Is that [the Gospel] the book the Jews and the christains have in common???? there is a book that both Jews and christains claim to posses yet see it in radically different ways. Historically the christains and the jews didnt see eye to eye - thats well known and heavily documented.

Yes I was talking about the OT/ Torah - Both see it radically differently. Nothing to do with the NT.

[suffiyan007]

Yes I was talking about the OT/ Torah - Both see it radically differently. Nothing to do with the NT.

Hello, Bro..i would to know if u willing to tell me....! i would like to understand a bit bout the Torah...i understand the NT only.tQ....

i had read a book of JuDas iscariot....juSt a sinopsis and summary of the book quite interesting....i dont know whether right or not....i heard that Judas iscariot is liking Jesus A.S and then he become betrayed jesus cause jesus doesn't like him and etc...i know why the narrator of the book written like this...if anyone read the book do tell me ok.

[Grace Seeker]

Yes I was talking about the OT/ Torah - Both see it radically differently. Nothing to do with the NT.

So, if you were intending to ask about the OT/Torah, can you see how asking a question, as you did, about the Gospel being a book that Jews and Christians have in common would seem rather confusing?

Anyway, hopefully that is all cleared up now.

As to the difference in views regarding the OT/Torah -- it isn't the whole of the Tanakah that we see so differently, but more in selected passages and the way those passages are understood to do or do not refer to the Messiah. Then the Christian acceptance of Jesus as the foretold Messiah leads us to look back on the Tanakah and see it in a different light than do Jews.

[Zafran]

So, if you were intending to ask about the OT/Torah, can you see how asking a question, as you did, about the Gospel being a book that Jews and Christians have in common would seem rather confusing?

Anyway, hopefully that is all cleared up now.

As to the difference in views regarding the OT/Torah -- it isn't the whole of the Tanakah that we see so differently, but more in selected passages and the way those passages are understood to do or do not refer to the Messiah. Then the Christian acceptance of Jesus as the foretold Messiah leads us to look back on the Tanakah and see it in a different light than do Jews.

I've also heard the trinity in Genesis. I can remember then and then we have Abhrham pbuh and sacrifce and what it represents and if Jesus pbuh was always around in the Torah.

In the Post in the other thread i was replying Follower who was mixing up the Quranic verse as usual.

[Zafran]

Hello, Bro..i would to know if u willing to tell me....! i would like to understand a bit bout the Torah...i understand the NT only.tQ....

The Torah is the first 5 books of the OT according to Jews and christains - Ofcourse Muslims belive in the Torah was given to Moses (as) but we question the so called Torah of today.

[Ben]

I’m not trying to run a sword into this thread, but I think it’s important to ask the following question: WHY are we trying to define the founder(s) of Christianity? A plurality of the votes (45% when I checked) is for Paul. But why does it matter? Even if 100% of the votes were for Paul, all we’ve done is established the origin of Christianity, but we have done nothing to show that Christianity is true or false. To attempt to invalidate a view by showing how that view came to be is to commit the genetic fallacy. Therefore I don’t see a purpose in debating the origin.

Just sayin’…feel free to carry on :)

[YusufNoor]

Yusuf, you assume too much.

speaking of assuming too much:

I'm not avoiding any questions because of fear that I can't talk about them. But I do discriminate in my use of time. When you ask questions that I am well aware that you know the answer to, I don't take your questions seriously. When I have limited time to respond, questions that I don't think are serious questions go to the bottom of the priority list. This is not to say that you don't have reasons for your questions, perhaps to draw something out or make a point in a particular way, but I have to make decisions as to what to take time on or not take time on independent of your agenda.

I too am well aware of the process by which the Bible that is in use today evolved over time.

actually, i believe that this is the first time that you have said as much

I don't have all of the answers to when this or that book was accepted or rejected memorized and don't always have the time to research answers to questions that I don't see as relevant to what I was asking, especially when they are as easily known to you as they are to me.

you write as is you have a better understanding of the authenticity of Christians texts than the scholars, therefore you should be able to back up what you say. and of course you wouldn't see the relevancy to any of this [in ANY thread] i presume.

Normally, I would be glad to join in your games, but this summer, at this particular point of time in my life I just don't have time.

no one is asking you to stick around here, but if you are going to make posts and start threads, then you should answer the questions and reply to the comments in them [instead of picking and choosing which pre-teen or teenager that you will responsd to.]

So, without dates I've already stipulated that the NT was complied over time with varying books seen as being canonical at one point in history. That list would change over history till it was eventually settled on by general consensus, a consensus that was latter conferred as established by the church at a church council.

But for precises books and dates you can look them up as well and quickly as I. I have no idea how this relates to determining who is the founder of Christianity.

you wrote:

Thank-you for an a-ha moment.

If I understand you correctly, since the Qur'an reports that the disciples asked to be registered among the witness for the events as the Qur'an presents them, then if any other source of writing suggests that the disciples were doing something different that what the Qur'an says, those other sources (be they the Bible, contemporary historians, or writings of the disciples themselves) must by definition be wrong as a result of some type of corruption: the altering of manuscripts, the works being forgeries, using/creating fictious historical accounts or some other way in which error is introduced to them.

Do I understand the essence of what you are saying?


And if the disciples were true followers of Jesus and the NT record substantially disputes what is in the Qur'an, then since the disciples didn't fall away from sharing the message that the Qur'an presents Jesus as bringing, the next most logical person to have been able to make such a significant change in Jesus' teaching becomes Paul -- especially since about half of the NT is purported to have been written by him.

when asked, what half? you replied:

Not according to most of those "scholars" you like to quote from. They would probably tell you that the majority of letters attributed to Paul were supposedly written by someone else.

rather than answer the question, which i guess we'll just have to wonder about your motives for that, you IMPLY that there is something wrong with THOSE QUOTE "scholars" UNQUOTE, as if to marginalize them, perhaps because they don't conform to your views and Allahu Alum.

so it seems that YOU have the time to play games, when you prefer not to answer a question or series of questions, now claiming ignorance or lack of knowledge.

WHY don't you just claim this lack of knowledge instead or posting your usual propaganda? you could save a whole lot of your time then!

if you don't have time to respond, then post less. i've tried it, it works!

but as you your final question:

But for precises books and dates you can look them up as well and quickly as I. I have no idea how this relates to determining who is the founder of Christianity

you claimed that Paul wrote HALF of the Bible! as that is NOT true, i was simply trying to determine the basis for that comment.

are you sure Paul didn't write Hebrews? if not who did?

[glo]

I’m not trying to run a sword into this thread, but I think it’s important to ask the following question: WHY are we trying to define the founder(s) of Christianity? A plurality of the votes (45% when I checked) is for Paul. But why does it matter? Even if 100% of the votes were for Paul, all we’ve done is established the origin of Christianity, but we have done nothing to show that Christianity is true or false. To attempt to invalidate a view by showing how that view came to be is to commit the genetic fallacy. Therefore I don’t see a purpose in debating the origin.

Just sayin’…feel free to carry on :)

Hi Ben

I think the reason for asking the question is that in discussions with Muslims the argument often crops up that Jesus never claimed the things Christian doctrine teaches, and that his true teachings were distorted by his followers - Paul being the first and most obvious culprit.

In the light of those discussions the poll was started.

I agree with you that it does not prove or disprove Christianity in any way - but I don't think that is the purpose of the thread.
From a Christian perspective, I have found the question quite interesting. :)

[Grace Seeker]

Yusuf, you can accept the answers I've given or not. I don't much really care. I once asked you about a post you chose to respond to nearly a year later, and your answer to me was that you would post when you chose to post and that your method of posting wasn't going to be determined by someone else.

Sounded like a good answer then, and it still does now.

I've responded to everything you've asked, here, in other threads dealing with parallel questions or in the past. I'm not at this point in my life going to waste time continuing to rehash stuff with you over and over again. Yep, there are some posts by others I will respond to over yours. Deal with it. But you assume way too much with your interpretations as too why. That's just information -- absorb it, believe it, ignore it, disbelieve it, I don't much really care.

I've got plenty going on in my life right now, so that this forum isn't even on the list of priorities, let alone your posts in particular when I am on LI. Some friends who know some about what I am dealing with -- my 83 year old father collapsed in his driveway the middle of last month from congestive heart failure complicated by inoperable aortic stenosis and cardiac arythmias, spent a week in ICU, another week in the hospital and now is adjusting to involuntary life rehabbing in a nursing home 3 hours away from where I live -- recently asked about how things were going and this was my response:[quote author=Grace Seeker link=topic=16722.msg341220#msg341220 date=1247603793]

Dad is holding his own. Shows some improvement with regaining strength and mobility. Got a good attitude and works hard at his physical therapy. But the larger issues are unresolved and short of either life-threatening surgery or a miracle won't be.

My daughter visited with her kids last week and that made his day. I'm finding that he's got an incredible number of friends scattered throughout the community. I'm there at least 2 days a week (the church gave me an extra day off so that I could be there that much) to help with his personal affairs and begin to work on the house. As of yet I haven't had any time to work on the house, but am meeting a lot of people as I go from business to business that are genuinely interested in how he is doing. I mean like I dropped his car off at the auto dealer to get a part replaced that he had previously ordered, and the shop foreman started asking about him. Same with the secretary at the car insurance and managers of two banks. It seems everywhere I go my Dad has people who have a story to tell me about him. I had no idea. The neighbors have gone out of there way not just for him, but for us as well. And he seems to have company from the church or neighborhood almost everyday. He's 83 and in a nursing home and there are 11 year old kids coming to visit him. I can see why he didn't want to be placed in a nursing home near me.

As for me, I'm tired. I've had more meals out than at home these last couple of weeks, and driven more miles than I did when I made my living as a truck driver.
[/quote]

And right now I'm off to a committee I continue to chair helping about 100 people who lost homes in our areas from record flooding last year in their continuing process of recovery. Given all of this, Yusuf, your concerns don't even register a blip on my radar.

[glo]

I'm praying for you and your family, Grace Seeker, especially your dad.
Take care of yourself too, that's important!

And yes, cyber places like this pale into insignificance at times like this.

I am sure I speak for everyone here when I say that we understand the pressures you are under, and that we do not wish to add to those pressures.

God bless you and keep you.

[Grace Seeker]

I'm praying for you and your family, Grace Seeker, especially your dad.
Take care of yourself too, that's important!

And yes, cyber places like this pale into insignificance at times like this.

I am sure I speak for everyone here when I say that we understand the pressures you are under, and that we do not wish to add to those pressures.

God bless you and keep you.

Thank-you, Glo. This is a long-term issue with times that require a great deal of attention and times that I simply have to trust my father into other people's hands. There are days when I am completely exhausted, and days when I can recover and have renewed energy. Strangely it is sometimes on those exhausting days that I intentionally come here and to other forums as sort of a catharitic experience, giving me something else to think about for a time. But I'm surely going to frustrate people who are used to engaging me as I've been willing to in the past. I realize that when I am tired I am not always as clear thinking as I would like to be. So, I have to pick and choose where I spend my time and what I invest my energies in. I will be here some, and then gone, only to come back again perhaps days later, and when I return who knows exactly what I will be able to pick up agains and what I will have to let go. We shall see.

But again, thanks to you and to all who sent me private notes, that you are praying for my dad. I admit it is tough having just lost my mother January 1, and I don't want to lose them both in one year.

[Danah]

Hi all,

I read this verse yesterday

“According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the FOUNDATION, and another builds on it"

1 Corinthians 3:10

who was meant in this verse? wasn't Paul who wrote this?

[Grace Seeker]

To answer the second part of your question: Yes, Paul wrote the above. He also wrote the verse which follows the one you quoted:

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11)
Hopefully that answers the first part of your question as to the nature of the foundation Paul is referencing in verse 10.

[جوري]

^^ does that statement sugar coat the one that preceded it? If no church needed to be re- laid after Jesus then why all the additives and preservatives? shouldn't what Jesus laid stand unadulterated?

[Grace Seeker]

I think the whole passage is a metaphor. Paul is using a building analogy to talk about his understanding of what the church is.

In asking the original question at the beginning of this thread I wasn't thinking of this verse at all, but more in terms of the way that people speak of George Washington as the "father of our country" in the USA. So, I was curious as to who people would identify as the "founding father(s)" of Christianity. I knew there would be a lot of different answers -- I tried to name a few of the probably answers in the poll. Not surprisingly some didn't like my suggestions and wanted to give a different answer I hadn't considered. As the thread developed, I sometimes found the reasons given for the various answers even more intriguing than the answer itself.

I've been surprised that Peter and the other disciples didn't elicit more support. After all the movement was under their leadership long before Paul arrived on the scene. It seems Paul's eventually rise to a place of dominant influence, at least if based on the amount of his writings that are preserved within the canon of the New Testament and the degree to which they influenced the development of the dogmas of later generations tend to make him a more pivotal figure in many people's eyes in producing the ultimate form which Christianity would take on for succeeding generations than even Jesus himself. I'm not agreement with that argument, for I think that makes Paul more the shaper of Christianity than it's founder, but perhaps that is a distinction that I draw to finely to be well received in a forum like this?

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

....it is tough having just lost my mother January 1, and I don't want to lose them both in one year.

My God ; it's such a tough situation ..really. I lost my dad last year and can't think of even illness of mom . May God help all your family members and you to take care of your dad . May God grant what is good for him .

[Rabi Mansur]

:sl:

I voted Paul. I always thought that he had the greatest impact on the early Christian church and his writings informed the beliefs of those who came later. He also had a profound influence on Martin Luther. Without Paul the church would look a lot different. Where would the teachings on being saved by grace be today without Paul? Without his missionary zeal throughout the ancient world I don't think Christianity would have spread.

Peace. :peace:

[Ramadhan]

I don't know much about christianity history.
so is paul considered a prophet by christians?
he never met 'Eesa (peace be upon him) did he?

[Rabi Mansur]

I don't know much about christianity history.
so is paul considered a prophet by christians?
he never met 'Eesa (peace be upon him) did he?

He was an apostle. In some respects he was a prophet too. I think it depends on the branch of christianity as to how Paul is viewed. I was a mormon and they viewed Paul as a Prophet/apostle but actually ignored a lot of what he said about grace and being saved. For most of christianity his teachings are absolutely fundamental.
He never met Jesus in the flesh, but had some kind of divine encounter with him on the road to Damascus.

:wa:

[Ramadhan]

Why are some Paul's teachings considered to be more superior than Jesus pbuh?

[Rabi Mansur]

Why are some Paul's teachings considered to be more superior than Jesus pbuh?

:sl:
It don't know that they are necessarily superior, but one factor is that Jesus' teachings can only be found in the gospels. And the gospels basically repeat a lot of the same material so there isn't a lot that exists in the New Testament that people can say is authentic to Jesus. There is also some contradictory material in the gospels. Paul, on the other hand, actually is the author of more books in the New Testament than anyone else. And some of his writings are the closest in time to when Jesus was on the earth according to most scholars. On the other hand, most of the gospels were written a long time after Jesus was dead and gone, and their authorship is therefore quite disputed. The authenticity of Paul's writings is not disputed as much and his writings contain a lot of early history, teachings that are not found in the gospels, and he was largely responsible for spreading Christianity.

Those are just some of the things that come to mind off the top of my head.

Peace.

[Ramadhan]

Thank you for your explanation!

It is now clear to me that the current christianity faith and practices are founded by Paul.

:sl:
It don't know that they are necessarily superior, but one factor is that Jesus' teachings can only be found in the gospels. And the gospels basically repeat a lot of the same material so there isn't a lot that exists in the New Testament that people can say is authentic to Jesus. There is also some contradictory material in the gospels. Paul, on the other hand, actually is the author of more books in the New Testament than anyone else. And some of his writings are the closest in time to when Jesus was on the earth according to most scholars. On the other hand, most of the gospels were written a long time after Jesus was dead and gone, and their authorship is therefore quite disputed. The authenticity of Paul's writings is not disputed as much and his writings contain a lot of early history, teachings that are not found in the gospels, and he was largely responsible for spreading Christianity.

Those are just some of the things that come to mind off the top of my head.

Peace.

[Sojourn]

If Christianity was solely based on the Teachings of Jesus than I'd say him, but from my studies I'd have to point towards the church that twisted The New Testament into their own words.

Jesus did promise His Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, that it would never be destroyed, and that He himself would remain with His followers. Jesus could bring the dead back to life, so I have no reason to doubt His promises.

[Ramadhan]

I wonder what would the reaction of Jesus pbuh be when he returns and see the Vatican, full of statues and likeness of him, his mother, and countless other variety of dead people.
Imagine his horror seeing some men in robes claiming to be representative of God!, while many others worshiping statues and asking forgiveness to those people in robes!
even imagine how angry he would be when he see those people make him god, pray to him, kneel and prostate to statues of him!

This, on top of countless other practices condoned and supported by the robed people which he forbid.

[Grace Seeker]

Why are some Paul's teachings considered to be more superior than Jesus pbuh?

I don't know that they are held to be superior. In fact I would suggest that they are not, and that those who do need to remember to interpret Paul in the light of what Jesus said and not the other way around.

However, there are many things places where Paul expanding on the teachings of Jesus, and he (like the rest of the Church) was led by the Holy Spirit. As Christians understand the Holy Spirit to be God speaking to us, then one who speaks under that direct guidance would be understood as speaking forth for God and should most certainly be listened to. While their are definitely some new ways of viewing the world and connecting with God disclosed by both Jesus and Paul when compared with the Covenant God made with the nation of Israel through Moses, Christians don't believe that there are any places of direct contradiction between any of the revelations -- except for, of course, that in Christ there is a new covenant, and therefore the old is gone and the new takes its place. In that regard much of the Levitical rules of the old covenant are set aside as not applicable for those who connect with God through this new covenant. But be clear, that covenant was established in Jesus, not Paul. Paul was at best, like Peter and the other apostles, an interpreter of the meaning of that new covenant and how it applied to people's lives.

[Ramadhan]

I don't know that they are held to be superior. In fact I would suggest that they are not, and that those who do need to remember to interpret Paul in the light of what Jesus said and not the other way around.

are you serious?
If you are honest, you would admit that current christianity teachings owe much to Paul's writings which contradict what Jesus pbuh said/did.

However, there are many things places where Paul expanding on the teachings of Jesus, and he (like the rest of the Church) was led by the Holy Spirit. As Christians understand the Holy Spirit to be God speaking to us, then one who speaks under that direct guidance would be understood as speaking forth for God and should most certainly be listened to.

okay, so anyone who claim to are led by holy spirit should be obeyed?
what are the requirements to be led by holy spirit?

While their are definitely some new ways of viewing the world and connecting with God disclosed by both Jesus and Paul when compared with the Covenant God made with the nation of Israel through Moses, Christians don't believe that there are any places of direct contradiction between any of the revelations -- except for, of course, that in Christ there is a new covenant, and therefore the old is gone and the new takes its place. In that regard much of the Levitical rules of the old covenant are set aside as not applicable for those who connect with God through this new covenant. But be clear, that covenant was established in Jesus, not Paul. Paul was at best, like Peter and the other apostles, an interpreter of the meaning of that new covenant and how it applied to people's lives.

Jesus pbuh never abrogated the ruling of not eating pork, Jesus pbuh never touched pork in his life. What would Jesus pbuh say to todays christians who eat pork (thanks to paul) and worship him?

[Grace Seeker]

are you serious?
If you are honest, you would admit that current christianity teachings owe much to Paul's writings which contradict what Jesus pbuh said/did.

Are you saying I'm not honest, or are you simply saying that you see things differently than me?

Read what I wrote. I have indeed said that Christianity owes much to Paul and his writings. But I disagree that Paul contradicted what Jesus said.

okay, so anyone who claim to are led by holy spirit should be obeyed?
what are the requirements to be led by holy spirit?

First, we have to be careful about the connotations behind our terms. I spoke of people being under the "guidance" of the Holy Spirit and you spoke of people being "led" by the Holy Spirit. They look like they could mean the same thing, but I'm not sure that we are in fact using them in the same way.

So, as to what I was talking about (because I can't read your mind):
I find that the Holy Spirit provides us with much guidance and direction, much like a parent does his/her children. But not all children are obedient to their parent's and not all Christians are obedient to the Holy Spirit. Secondly, in the fallen world in which we live, many people make special claims regarding their experience, some of them are even true. So, before everyone begins following the next person who claims they have a word from God for the world we would have to discern two things:
(1) have they really heard from God or perhaps it is something else ranging from indigestion and bad dreams to hearing from the devil disguised as an angel of light? (I've seen more than one person on this forum suggest this is what happened to Paul, on other forums the same has been suggested for Muhammad or the Pope.)
(2) assuming that they have really been receiving input from the Holy Spirit, have they properly received it, understood it, interpreted its meaning, and correctly divined how to apply it. Just because someone gets God's message, it doesn't follow that they know what to do with it. In the Hebrew accounts of the Exodus, Moses did indeed received God's message while leading the people through the wilderness that he could get water from a rock by means of his staffl but he also misapplied that lesson and God had to call him on it.

So, I would not say that anyone who claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit should automatically be obeyed just because he made such claims. How then do we know who to obey and who not to obey? That is indeed the $64,000 question. It is really tough. It comes through discernment. I believe it is usually a process in which we find confirmation for that message from other voices in the Church, and it does not contradict God's word as previously disclosed in scripture.

Jesus pbuh never abrogated the ruling of not eating pork, Jesus pbuh never touched pork in his life. What would Jesus pbuh say to todays christians who eat pork (thanks to paul) and worship him?

I agree that Jesus is unlikely to have ever eaten pork. But scripture does record him doing other things that the keepers of the law regarded as making him a lawbreaker. For instance Jesus and his disciples were chastised for picking grains of wheet and eating them on the Sabbath as they walked through a field. On another instance he healed a person on the Sabbath. But were understood as violations of the commandment to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy.

The commandment to not eat pork was a part of the covenant that God made with the nation of Israel. It was not binding on non-Jews, and still is not understood by Jews to be binding on Gentiles. One of the questions before the early Christian community was whether or not Gentiles who were becoming followers of Jesus had to also become converts to Judaism in order to belong to the nascent Christian community. It is very true that Paul and Barnabas thought the answer to that question was NO. But they were challenged by unnamed individuals the book of Acts labels as Judaizers who thought the answer to that question was an unequivocal YES. The resulting tensions within the followers of Jesus resulted in the holding of the first Church council, a meeting of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (the story of this council is recorded in Acts 15), and at the conclusion of this council a decision was made. That decision was that Gentiles converts to the faith did not have to conform to the Jewish laws of the old covenant to be a part of the new covenant which defined the Christian community's understanding of itself.

Paul argued for that, but it was NOT Paul who rendered that verdict. The judgment was actually made by James and agreed to by the whole of the Apostles. One of the primary speakers in favor of that decision was none other than Peter.

What do I think that Jesus would say to today's Christians that eat pork and worship him? I seriously think he would be fine with it. It was his Spirit that led Peter to do exactly these things prior to and completely independent of Paul's influence. That same Spirit led Paul to ministry amongst the Gentiles where Paul saw how the Gentiles were blessed by this same Spirit of God that had blessed the Apostles at Pentecost. And then that Spirit led the Apostles and elders of the Church to make the determination that such rules were not necessary to enjoin on any of the Gentile converts to Christianity. So, as only a very few Christians today are of Jewish heritage, I don't think Jesus would have a problem with Christians doing today exactly what his Spirit led the first generation of Christians to do as well.

[glo]

What do I think that Jesus would say to today's Christians that eat pork and worship him? I seriously think he would be fine with it. It was his Spirit that led Peter to do exactly these things prior to and completely independent of Paul's influence. That same Spirit led Paul to ministry amongst the Gentiles where Paul saw how the Gentiles were blessed by this same Spirit of God that had blessed the Apostles at Pentecost. And then that Spirit led the Apostles and elders of the Church to make the determination that such rules were not necessary to enjoin on any of the Gentile converts to Christianity. So, as only a very few Christians today are of Jewish heritage, I don't think Jesus would have a problem with Christians doing today exactly what his Spirit led the first generation of Christians to do as well.

Thank you for your interesting post, Grace Seeker.

What are your personal thoughts about Christians who feel compelled to adhere to the Old Testament laws, despite not having any Jewish heritage? For example, Christians who don't eat pork or cover their hair?

[Grace Seeker]

Thank you for your interesting post, Grace Seeker.

What are your personal thoughts about Christians who feel compelled to adhere to the Old Testament laws, despite not having any Jewish heritage? For example, Christians who don't eat pork or cover their hair?

That they are trying to live by a law that they are freed from and it is simply isn't necessary. But it is also a personal choice. If they do it as a way to honor God or find it helps them to grow closer to him, I say more power to them. Remember, you're talking to a Christian who has adopted the habit of fasting during Ramadan. So, I've no problem with eclectic practices. But I know that it isn't my fasting that makes me closer to God, it is that fasting helps me to develop a better attitude and heart toward God. I allow that the same could be true of those who keep other covenantal practices.


"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." (Psalm 51:17)

[YusufNoor]

Are you saying I'm not honest, or are you simply saying that you see things differently than me?

Read what I wrote. I have indeed said that Christianity owes much to Paul and his writings. But I disagree that Paul contradicted what Jesus said.

I agree that Jesus is unlikely to have ever eaten pork. But scripture does record him doing other things that the keepers of the law regarded as making him a lawbreaker. For instance Jesus and his disciples were chastised for picking grains of wheet and eating them on the Sabbath as they walked through a field. On another instance he healed a person on the Sabbath. But were understood as violations of the commandment to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy.

not all considered them as lawbreaking, David "picked food" on the Sabbath. the Sadducees and some of the Pharisees, yes. but the Hillel school shouldn't have a problem with it. therefore they justify no additional "law breaking."

Paul argued for that, but it was NOT Paul who rendered that verdict. The judgment was actually made by James and agreed to by the whole of the Apostles. One of the primary speakers in favor of that decision was none other than Peter.

What do I think that Jesus would say to today's Christians that eat pork and worship him? I seriously think he would be fine with it. It was his Spirit that led Peter to do exactly these things prior to and completely independent of Paul's influence. That same Spirit led Paul to ministry amongst the Gentiles where Paul saw how the Gentiles were blessed by this same Spirit of God that had blessed the Apostles at Pentecost. And then that Spirit led the Apostles and elders of the Church to make the determination that such rules were not necessary to enjoin on any of the Gentile converts to Christianity. So, as only a very few Christians today are of Jewish heritage, I don't think Jesus would have a problem with Christians doing today exactly what his Spirit led the first generation of Christians to do as well.

are you saying your Scriptures say that Peter ate pork?

[Grace Seeker]

are you saying your Scriptures say that Peter ate pork?

Yes. I believe that he did can be inferred from them.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Why would anyone vote Jesus(pbuh)... he didn't bring any religion, he didn't even mention the word Christianity. He was sent to the Isrealites to guide them rightly to worshiping One God without partners.

[Arisempire]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Why would anyone vote Jesus(pbuh)... he didn't bring any religion, he didn't even mention the word Christianity. He was sent to the Isrealites to guide them rightly to worshiping One God without partners.

Very correct, Jesus never wanted a new religion. Anyway, I don't know who found the Christianity and the alternatives should be more specified.

[Hiroshi]

Very correct, Jesus never wanted a new religion. Anyway, I don't know who found the Christianity and the alternatives should be more specified.

Acts 11:26 says:

"the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians." (Young's Literal Translation)
"and it was first in Antioch thhat the disciples were by divine providence called Christians." (New World Translation)

The Greek word in this verse "krematisai" literally means: "to style divinely". This shows that God himself wanted Jesus' followers to be called Christians and so be identified with him. Christianity began with these early Christians.

[Arisempire]

Acts 11:26 says:

"the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians." (Young's Literal Translation)
"and it was first in Antioch thhat the disciples were by divine providence called Christians." (New World Translation)

The Greek word in this verse "krematisai" literally means: "to style divinely". This shows that God himself wanted Jesus' followers to be called Christians and so be identified with him. Christianity began with these early Christians.

booksie.com/religion_and_spirituality/article/rauckee/jesus-was-a-jew-and-did-not-create-christianity

Even in what you quote is just asked to call the believers like that, not to create a new faith.

[Hiroshi]

booksie.com/religion_and_spirituality/article/rauckee/jesus-was-a-jew-and-did-not-create-christianity

Even in what you quote is just asked to call the believers like that, not to create a new faith.

Likely, the believers called each other "Christians" but outsiders still referred to them as those belonging to "The Way" or "a sect" (Acts 9:2; Acts 24:14).

But coming of the the Christ or Messiah would bring about certain changes as foretold by the prophets in the OT. Isaiah 53:10-12 foretold that by his death, he would carry the sins of many people and bring them into a righteous standing with God. And Daniel 9:27 shows that this sacrificial death would "cause sacrifice and gift offering" (i.e. the requirements of the Mosaic Law) to cease. That verse in Daniel also foretold a further change: Jerusalem would be destroyed (Matthew 24:15-16). Only those Christians who heeded Jesus' warning escaped the city before the Romans destroyed it in 70 CE.

All of these new developments were clearly prophecied and documented in the scriptures of Judaism. Christianity was the natural outcome of those new developments rather than a new faith.

[Hiroshi]

booksie.com/religion_and_spirituality/article/rauckee/jesus-was-a-jew-and-did-not-create-christianity

I had a look at your link.

The type of Christianity identified with the churches today is something that has been corrupted far away from the true Christianity as found in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches that there is "one God, the Father" not a trinity. And 1 John 5:21 says "guard yourselves from idols" whereas the churches are full of idolatry.

I must explain that I am a Jehovah's Witness and we follow the Bible and consider ourselves Christians. But we do not believe in the trinity or engage in idol worship.

[YusufNoor]

Acts 11:26 says:

"the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians." (Young's Literal Translation)
"and it was first in Antioch thhat the disciples were by divine providence called Christians." (New World Translation)

The Greek word in this verse "krematisai" literally means: "to style divinely". This shows that God himself wanted Jesus' followers to be called Christians and so be identified with him. Christianity began with these early Christians.

you CLAIM as much, but MOST translations DO NOT HAVE "by divine providence." so, which Greek manuscripts use the word you bring up? and of the thousands of Greek manuscripts, how many have it and how many don't? and how many EARLY Greek manuscripts have it?

can you back it up, or are you cherry picking to make your point?

peace

[M.I.A.]

allah is the founder of christianity.
jesus as is the messenger of christianity. peace and blessings be upon him.
and the quran tells you of the people of the book,
muslims
christians
and jews
*
although your liking of either and or all three might flip like switches sometimes.

although "christianity" is just a word, nice to impose little boxes on your world... makes the intolerance a little easier.
next we should devide the humans into neat little groups to discriminate against, maybe strike humanity from the dictionary.

[Hiroshi]

you CLAIM as much, but MOST translations DO NOT HAVE "by divine providence." so, which Greek manuscripts use the word you bring up? and of the thousands of Greek manuscripts, how many have it and how many don't? and how many EARLY Greek manuscripts have it?

can you back it up, or are you cherry picking to make your point?

peace

The Greek word is there, early manuscripts or not, but it depends on how it is translated.

The book "Insight on the Scriptures" published by Jehovah's Witnesses says this on page 440:

The Greek word khre‧ma‧ti′zo as used in the Christian Greek Scriptures is always associated with something supernatural, oracular, or divine. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in its Greek dictionary (1890, p. 78), defines it as “to utter an oracle . . . i.e. divinely intimate.” Edward Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon (1885, p. 786) gives the meaning: “Spoken in respect to a divine response, oracle, declaration, to give response, to speak as an oracle, to warn from God.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1889, p. 671): “to give a divine command or admonition, to teach from heaven . . . to be divinely commanded, admonished, instructed . . . to be the mouthpiece of divine revelations, to promulge the commands of God.” Thomas Scott in his Explanatory Notes on this text (1832, Vol. III, p. 419) says: “The word implies that this was done by divine revelation: for it has generally this signification in the New Testament, and is rendered ‘warned from God’ or ‘warned of God,’ even when there is no word for GOD in the Greek.” Concerning Acts 11:26, Clarke’s Commentary says: “The word [khre‧ma‧ti′sai] in our common text, which we translate were called, signifies in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate, by Divine direction. In this sense, the word is used, Matt. ii. 12 . . . If, therefore, the name was given by Divine appointment, it is most likely that Saul and Barnabas were directed to give it; and that, therefore, the name Christian is from God.”—See Mt 2:12, 22; Lu 2:26; Ac 10:22; Ro 7:3, Int; Heb 8:5; 11:7; 12:25, where this Greek verb occurs.

[YusufNoor]

Acts 11:26 says:

"the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians." (Young's Literal Translation)
"and it was first in Antioch thhat the disciples were by divine providence called Christians." (New World Translation)

THIS "translation" of the bible is rejected by over 95% of Christians and is ONLY used by Jehovah Witnesses

The Greek word in this verse "krematisai" literally means: "to style divinely". This shows that God himself wanted Jesus' followers to be called Christians and so be identified with him. Christianity began with these early Christians.

The Greek word [khre‧ma‧ti′zo] is there, early manuscripts or not, but it depends on how it is translated.

let's review some translations, shall we:

New Living Translation (NLT)

26 When he found him, he brought him back to Antioch. Both of them stayed there with the church for a full year, teaching large crowds of people. (It was at Antioch that the believers[a] were first called Christians.)

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

26and when he had found him, he brought him to (A)Antioch And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and (B)the disciples were first called (C)Christians in (D)Antioch.

The Message (MSG)

25-26Then Barnabas went on to Tarsus to look for Saul. He found him and brought him back to Antioch. They were there a whole year, meeting with the church and teaching a lot of people. It was in Antioch that the disciples were for the first time called Christians.

Amplified Bible (AMP)

26And when he had found him, he brought him back to Antioch. For a whole year they assembled together with and [a]were guests of the church and instructed a large number of people; and in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

King James Version (KJV)

26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Common English Bible (CEB)

26 When he found him, he brought him to Antioch. They were there for a whole year, meeting with the church and teaching large numbers of people. It was in Antioch where the disciples were first labeled “Christians.”

New King James Version (NKJV)

26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

English Standard Version (ESV)

26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called(A) Christians.

New Century Version (NCV)

26 and when he found Saul, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year Saul and Barnabas met with the church and taught many people there. In Antioch the followers were called Christians for the first time

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

26He found Saul and brought him to Antioch, where they met with the church for a whole year and taught many of its people. There in Antioch the Lord's followers were first called Christians.

GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

26After finding Saul, Barnabas brought him back to Antioch. Barnabas and Saul met with the church in Antioch for a whole year and taught a large group of people. The disciples were called Christians for the first time in the city of Antioch.

Darby Translation (DARBY)

26And having found [him], he brought him to Antioch. And so it was with them that for a whole year they were gathered together in the assembly and taught a large crowd: and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

26and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that for a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

26 and when he found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught large numbers, and the disciples (A) were first called Christians in Antioch. (B)

American Standard Version (ASV)

26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

26 He found him there. Then he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church. They taught large numbers of people. At Antioch the believers were called Christians for the first time.

New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)

26 and when he had found him, he led to Antioch. And all a year they lived there in the church, and taught much people, so that the disciples were named first at Antioch christian me

Today’s New International Version, ©2005 (TNIV)

26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)

26When he found him, he took him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with all who believed in Jesus Christ. They taught many people. Antioch was the first place where the disciples were called Christians

New International Version 1984, ©1984 (NIV1984)

26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

and so, how many of these translations agree with Young's Literal Translation? let's count, shall we? let's see, there's...


NONE!

you should be more honest and admit that you are taking the view of an EXTREME minority.

and the commentary on this verse:

The disciples named Christians, Relief sent to Judea.

Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ's precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without

the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true

Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind.

you see, it is not until AFTER Paul comes along claiming to be a Prophet and preaching a NEW gospel that adherents to this NEW RELIGION are called Christians and if ANY of those translations could have claimed this NEW TITLE was divinely inspired, i'm sure they would have!

Peace

[Mohamed Issa]

By Paul the devil for Isa (jesus) (PBUH) Says in The Holy Quran Surah 19 Mary: 19:34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 19:35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. 19:36 Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. 19:37 But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day! Also in Surah 5 Al Mâ'idah: 5:14 From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. 5:17 In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things." 5:18 (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum/Peace,

Watch this -



The man explains this stuff very well. I didn't know alot of things the guy mentioned, I'm sure some Christians didn't know either.

[MustafaMc]

allah is the founder of christianity.
jesus as is the messenger of christianity.

I rather seriously doubt that Allah (subhana wa ta ala) is the founder and Prophet Isa is the Messenger of the religion we know as Christianity today.

[جوري]

Asalaamu Alaikum/Peace,

Watch this -



The man explains this stuff very well. I didn't know alot of things the guy mentioned, I'm sure some Christians didn't know either.

I love Dr. Brown, but I must say that I disagree that the word 'Muslim' came only with Islam. See this:

Luke 6:40 "Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo." Also see this http://dialogtube.com/being_like_the_teacher.pdf some contend that the word Muslim is a new and can't be applied prior to the adevtn of Islam but, in fact found in Aramaic and Hebrew.. see original texts above..

from my thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...uran-only.html

:w:

[Hiroshi]

and so, how many of these translations agree with Young's Literal Translation? let's count, shall we? let's see, there's...


NONE!

you should be more honest and admit that you are taking the view of an EXTREME minority.

I commend you for your diligent research here YusufNoor. But take a look at something else. Notice how this same word is translated each time it occurs in just the King James Version:



Matthew 2:12 “And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.”

Matthew 2:22 “But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:”

Luke 2:26 “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.”

Acts 10:22 “And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.”

Romans 7:3 “So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

Hebrews 8:5 “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.”

Hebrews 11:7 “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.”

Hebrews 12:25 “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him [Moses] that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:”


In the NT the word always has some association with something divine. Even in Romans 7:3 where the word is just rendered “called”, the reference here is to what a woman would be called in accordance with God’s Law given to Moses.

It is surprising, but not unusual, that only two modern translations of the Bible seem to show this in the rendering of Acts 11:26. Sometimes a lexicon, commentary or scholar will give a deeper understanding of a scriptural expression that a translator may overlook. And there is plenty of authoritative commentary to support the view that “khrematizo” means divine declaration. I don’t believe that Young’s and the NWT are in error in their translation at this verse.

[Pygoscelis]

I stand by my answer on the first page of the thread. Christianity's core principles were nothing new, and came from various earlier precursor religions, including those of Egypt, Rome, Babylon, and of course the Jews of that time (who were an intermediary). In reading the bible and reading these other religions there is surprisingly little new in the bible.

[IAmZamzam]

I stand by my answer on the first page of the thread. Christianity's core principles were nothing new, and came from various earlier precursor religions, including those of Egypt, Rome, Babylon, and of course the Jews of that time (who were an intermediary). In reading the bible and reading these other religions there is surprisingly little new in the bible.

Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that "only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations". You see the little rift? "Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason." That's the game...Only the learned read old books and we have now so dealt with the learned that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We have done this by inculcating The Historical Point of View. The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood (specially by the learned man's own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is the "present state of the question". To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge—to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or your behaviour—this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded. And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another. But thanks be to our Father and the Historical Point of View, great scholars are now as little nourished by the past as the most ignorant mechanic who holds that "history is bunk".

12 characters

[gmcbroom]

Yahya Sulaiman, I never read the screwtape letters. C.S. Lewis is supposedly a good writer. Do you agree?
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom

[IAmZamzam]

He's a very good writer and occasionally a competent theologian. Then again I am no longer a Christian so my opinion of the latter may be skewed or biased or out of my element.

[Martinz]

In the poll, I chose Jesus.

It is the most simple and straightforward answer.

Christianity is about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (to bring people to God). Without Jesus, Christianity would not exist. However, without Paul, the Catholic church would not exist. Without God, nothing would exist!!!

OK, Ok, God is the ultimate founder of all monotheistic religions. But, to differentiate the founding of each religion, we need to look at the prophet who carried Gods' message...

Thus Prophet Mohammed, inspired by Angel Gabriel (and ultimately by God), founded Islam, for example.

So, if Jesus founded Christianity, and the disciples founded the first Christian church (before they were called Christians = fishers of men), then Paul founded the second Christian church - for the gentiles as well as the Jews.

Since that time, hundreds of people founded hundreds of Christian churchs. And I am both the founder and pope of my own church (in a manner of speaking), of which there is only me (and God) as a member.

And in my church, Trinity does not exist and the "Son of God" is a spiritual role model for the sons and daughters of God - not somebody to be worshipped. And in this context, Prophet Mohammed, and every other prophet, is a spiritual role model for the sons and daughters of God, also.

And in my church, Mother Mary was probably raped by a cousin-in-law when she went to visit relatives in Moab before she got pregnant with Jesus. But, of course this can't be confirmed.

Christianity is not necessarily what Christian dogma dictates: Christianity can only be defined by an individuals experiance, understanding and faith - regardless of whether they belong to any particular church or not; regardless of whatever ideology they may adhere to or not.

In my Christianity, I Submit to God by following the Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:36-40) and that is the core of my faith.

[MustafaMc]

Christianity is about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (to bring people to God). Without Jesus, Christianity would not exist. However, without Paul, the Catholic church would not exist. Without God, nothing would exist!!!

I agree that Christianity should be about the life and teachings of Jesus, but I have read Christians write that what Jesus taught and how he lived was not as important as what he supposedly did on the cross. If this is in fact what Christianity is then Jesus can't be the founder because he did not teach that doctrine.

OK, Ok, God is the ultimate founder of all monotheistic religions. But, to differentiate the founding of each religion, we need to look at the prophet who carried Gods' message...

Thus Prophet Mohammed, inspired by Angel Gabriel (and ultimately by God), founded Islam, for example.

I agree with this.

So, if Jesus founded Christianity, and the disciples founded the first Christian church (before they were called Christians = fishers of men), then Paul founded the second Christian church - for the gentiles as well as the Jews.

Actually, Paul claimed to have received a revelation from God that ultimately developed into the religion we now know as Christianity.

And I am both the founder and pope of my own church (in a manner of speaking), of which there is only me (and God) as a member.

And in my church, Trinity does not exist and the "Son of God" is a spiritual role model for the sons and daughters of God - not somebody to be worshipped. And in this context, Prophet Mohammed, and every other prophet, is a spiritual role model for the sons and daughters of God, also.

This is not far from Islam. Yes, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a role model and he was a messenger of God. We Muslims follow his example and pattern our lives after his.

And in my church, Mother Mary was probably raped by a cousin-in-law when she went to visit relatives in Moab before she got pregnant with Jesus. But, of course this can't be confirmed.

I disagree, as I believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was born to the virgin Mary without a human father. God said "Be!" and he was. I see your belief here to be disrespectful towards Jesus and Mary, although you probably didn't intend offense or disrespect.

It will be interesting to read what else you believe.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

in my church, Mother Mary was probably raped by a cousin-in-law .

:omg:

what's the basis of this concept ?

[Martinz]

Originally posted by MustafaMc
I agree that Christianity should be about the life and teachings of Jesus, but I have read Christians write that what Jesus taught and how he lived was not as important as what he supposedly did on the cross. If this is in fact what Christianity is then Jesus can't be the founder because he did not teach that doctrine.

Greetings MustafaMc. In my previous post, the point I was making is that there is a distinction between 'Christianity' and the 'Christian church'. What Jesus supposedly did on the cross and that he died for our sins, etc, is a doctrine of the Christian church. And the emphasis of Jesus dying on the cross being more important than his life and teachings is one possible interpretation of Christianity. But, it is not my interpretation of Christianity. In order to define 'Christianity', we need to concider many other points of view as well as the predominating Christian doctrine. Because I strongly oppose 'Christianity' defined by this predominating Christian doctrine and that is the main reason I have responded to this thread. To me, Christianity can only be about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ - including how he died on the cross!

Yes, I know most Christians disagree my point of view concerning Christian ideology and God bless them all!

42 years ago, I became a Christian when I was 10 years old, at a Christian camp organised by the Scripture Union. A volunteer asked me if I wanted Jesus to come into my heart. And I thought: Why not? So, I said this prayer asking Jesus to come into my heart. but it wasn't Jesus who came into my heart but Gods' Holy Spirit! It came out of nowhere and I had never felt so much joy in my life! I call myself a Christian because that is how I came to God; Jesus was my gateway to the kingdom of heaven. To me, Christianity is not about conforming to Christian doctrine, but about my relationship with this One God that burns with love and light at the very core of my being. I hope that this clarifies what my point of view is.

Dear Muslim Woman. Blessings to both Jesus and Mother Mary! And I apologise to anybody who may be offended by my remarks, because I did not intend to be insulting.
I honestly don't believe in the virgin birth. God created the laws of nature. One of these laws of nature is that babies are created out of the union of a sperm and the egg. I'm sorry, but someone had to have supplied that sperm. I know that just before Mary got pregnant, she visited her relatives in Moab. My speculation is that someone supplied that sperm in Moab. Now Mary is not the type of girl to commit adultery. So, she must have been raped. In those days, even if a woman is raped she can be accused of adultery - so it was all hushed up. But, we will never know. Better to believe in the virgin birth; to go along with this explanation. But, I just can't believe in the virgin birth. I'm sorry!:omg:

Anyway, since I believe that Trinity is a heresy, I'm off to check out that Trinity thread...

[MustafaMc]

Greetings MustafaMc.

Thank you, and greetings to you, Martinz

I strongly oppose 'Christianity' defined by this predominating Christian doctrine and that is the main reason I have responded to this thread. To me, Christianity can only be about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ - including how he died on the cross!

In a similar way Islam is about the life and teaching of Muhammad (sal alahu alayhi wa salam) as he also brought a message from God to teach proper belief and worship of God. In Islam, we believe that Jesus was born super-naturally to the virgin Mary and that he did not die on the cross, but ascended without dying to return near the end of Time.

To me, Christianity is not about conforming to Christian doctrine, but about my relationship with this One God that burns with love and light at the very core of my being. I hope that this clarifies what my point of view is.

Yes, I too believe in One God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.

I honestly don't believe in the virgin birth. God created the laws of nature.

Since I am a cotton breeder and a geneticist, I apply the 'laws of nature' to my work. However, God created those laws (as you said) and can also super-naturally override them. I believe that, through God's will, Moses was able to turn a staff into a serpent and to part the sea for safe passage. I also believe that Jesus was born without a father and that he raised the dead to live again.

I am certainly interested in discussing more with you and learning more about your perspective.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

Dear Muslim Woman. Blessings to both Jesus and Mother Mary! And I apologise to anybody who may be offended by my remarks, because I did not intend to be insulting.
I honestly don't believe in the virgin birth. God created the laws of nature. ...

as br Mustafa already stated Moses pbuh performed miracles , don't u believe in that ? Muslims also believe some others messengers performed miracles by the will , power and permission of God Almighty.

Some miracles took place in the lives of the Prophets pbut like Adam pbuh was created without parents , fire did not burn Abraham pbuh , Jonah/ Yunus pbuh was alive when he was swalloed by a whale .

Birth of Juses pbuh was also a miracle.

Verily, the likeness of Iesa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was.

( سورة آل عمران , Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #59)


Why it is so hard to believe in miracles ? At least it's much more comfortable than believing in a story that Mother Mary ra was .........may God forbid .

[truthseeker63]

Paul is the founder of Christianity.

[Martinz]

as br Mustafa already stated Moses pbuh performed miracles , don't u believe in that ? Muslims also believe some others messengers performed miracles by the will , power and permission of God Almighty.

Greetings to both sister Muslim Woman and brother Mustafa. I appreciate you sharing your points of view and that makes me feel glad. Although I have some skeptism about miracles in general ...

(Just as I said this, my lightbulb explodes and drops out of its socket...hmmmm^o)..."God, are you trying to tell me something? But, God, please don't explode the other lightbulb to answer - find something else -like a hundred dollar bill blowing into my backyard!")

I don't know! Just knowing that what the prophets say is the truth and that God is real is a miracle enough. (Thank God I have a spare lightbulb in my cupboard)

I have lived a life full of weird coincidences, so I guess I do believe in miracles to some degree. So, how do I differentate between real miracles and religion in general trying to pull wool over my eyes?

I mean, I do believe that the Red Sea parted before Moses and company, but that there has to be some scientific basis for that miracle to happen. And if there is some scientific basis, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is any less of a miracle. Let me give you an example: when Joshua led the Israelites to the river Jordan to cross it to enter the promised land, the waters parted that allowed them to cross. However, in scientific research, it has been found that at that time there was an earthquake, where debris temporarily created a dam upriver which held the water back long enough for the Israelites to cross the river. The fact that this happened just when Joshua's people needed to cross is a miracle enough.

Whatever...

[Tilmeez]

Posts pertaining to the topic: Nature of Jesus' (Alayhi Salam) birth have been moved to This new thread.

[SalamChristian]

God and Jesus were my answers.

Thank you sincerely to our Muslim brothers who responded honestly and thoughtfully. It was interesting to see how Muslims view Paul. To be fair, I long ago came to Christianity with suspicions about Paul similar to those you have, but I found them to be unfounded. The difficulty is in fully understanding Paul's theology--it takes patience and steadfastness.

Salaam Alaikum

[Fivesolas]

I voted God. Christianity, biblically speaking, is the original faith.

[Ramadhan]

I voted God. Christianity, biblically speaking, is the original faith.

Which God?

(12 chrs)

[Fivesolas]

Which God?

(12 chrs)

There is only one God. The Creator of heaven and earth and all that is contained therein. He is the God Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am sure this thread isn't mean to devolve into a discussion on the Trinity.

[MustafaMc]

There is only one God. The Creator of heaven and earth and all that is contained therein. He is the God Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Well, you are partially right with a slight correction: He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

[Hamza Asadullah]

There is only one God. The Creator of heaven and earth and all that is contained therein. He is the God Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am sure this thread isn't mean to devolve into a discussion on the Trinity.

So he is the lord of the lesser God Jesus? Both are Gods? One is a higher God and the other a lower ranked God? That goes against the message of Christ which was ONLY to worship God but today the majority of Christians worship Jesus.

So God was born from Mary who must also be God to have concieved God who then suckled God and bought God up as a baby who knew nothing and God had to be fed and God excreteed waste as God was a human who's father was God but mother was a creation of God who herself should have been God because she concieved God.

None of it makes sense because it is all lies that were attributed to Jesus who NEVER claimed to be God but as supported by the Bible commanded the Jews to worship ONE GOD!

Why does Jesus (PBUH!) in the Lord's prayer address the Lord as "Father" and then refer to the Father's children throughout as "Us" and "We," instead of separating himself from the rest of the children of God, as the Trinity would seem to demand?

If redemption through the blood of Christ, that one member of the Trinity, is all that is necessary for salvation, how are we to explain the many, many occasions in the Gospel that Jesus details the necessity of submitting directly to the One God -- without ever mentioning the role of his (Jesus') redeeming blood?

[YieldedOne]

Hmm. So the majority of people here think that Paul of Tarsus is the founder of Christianity, huh? Personally, I would say Jesus, but that's me.

Hmmm...

I wonder if Jesus really talked to him...whachu think, Mustafa? :coolious:

[Sol Invictus]

If redemption through the blood of Christ, that one member of the Trinity, is all that is necessary for salvation, how are we to explain the many, many occasions in the Gospel that Jesus details the necessity of submitting directly to the One God -- without ever mentioning the role of his (Jesus') redeeming blood?

well if the above were true then that might be a problem. good thing for us that christ did actually speak of his redeeming blood:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. --- Mark 10:45 NIV

so no, the fact that christ claimed to die for my sins, your sins and that of the rest of the world is quite clearly taught in the bible.

[MustafaMc]

I wonder if Jesus really talked to him...whachu think, Mustafa? :coolious:

According to wikipedia, no, at least not while Jesus (as) walked the earth.

"The turning point for Saul, as recounted in the book of Saint Luke, Acts of Apostles, was during a travel to a city in Asia, named Damascus, as part of the ongoing persecution plan to early and clandestine Christian communities, accompanied by a caravan of men and being ready to violently repress the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had not ever met nor ever seen, he was converted when the Resurrected Jesus appeared to him in all his luminous glory leaving him blind."

Neither do I see Jesus (as) appearing to Saul (basically a sworn enemy to the early Christians) after his ascension with a new revelation that Jesus (as) did not personally teach the 12 disciples while he was on earth. See "Paul's Gospel" by William R Newell at http://www.pilkingtonandsons.com/art...aulsgospel.pdf

[MrOmar]

Worships of the Evil Pope, Catholics worship a new god/devil the Pope who lies about god saying he has a son which he has no right to say. The Pope follows another devil called Paul May Allah curses him. May Paul & the Popes enjoy the Hell Fire forever. I hope the Catholics wake up to start worshiping the One & Only god Allah (SWT). Let’s all pray that the conquest of Rome will happen in our life time so that we may see truth (Islam) destroy falsehood (Christianity) like how it was done in Constantinople. Both are in hadiths says of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) its just a matter of time when Rome falls. 19:34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 19:35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. 19:36 Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. 19:37 But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day! (The Holy Quran Surah 19 Mary) 5:116 And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. 5:117 "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. (The Holy Quran Surah 5 Al Mâ'idah) 4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- 4:158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- 4:159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- (The Holy Quran Surah 4 An Nisâ') Read the Real Book of God The Holy Quran not the man-made bible.

well if the above were true then that might be a problem. good thing for us that christ did actually speak of his redeeming blood:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. --- Mark 10:45 NIV

so no, the fact that christ claimed to die for my sins, your sins and that of the rest of the world is quite clearly taught in the bible.

[Sol Invictus]

Worships of the Evil Pope, Catholics worship a new god/devil the Pope who lies about god saying he has a son which he has no right to say. The Pope follows another devil called Paul May Allah curses him. May Paul & the Popes enjoy the Hell Fire forever. I hope the Catholics wake up to start worshiping the One & Only god Allah (SWT). Let’s all pray that the conquest of Rome will happen in our life time so that we may see truth (Islam) destroy falsehood (Christianity) like how it was done in Constantinople. Both are in hadiths says of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) its just a matter of time when Rome falls. 19:34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 19:35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. 19:36 Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. 19:37 But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day! (The Holy Quran Surah 19 Mary) 5:116 And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. 5:117 "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. (The Holy Quran Surah 5 Al Mâ'idah) 4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- 4:158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- 4:159 And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- (The Holy Quran Surah 4 An Nisâ') Read the Real Book of God The Holy Quran not the man-made bible.

yes...your points are just so great. they have completely refuted everything i have said so far. forgive me for even thinking that i could ever prove my position.

now, all joking aside, the claim was made that jesus never spoke of his redeeming blood within the bible, i showed that this was factually untrue. what manner of a response is the above? do you not believe that jesus died on the cross? well that's well and good but it doesn't change the fact that the bible teaches this and proof of this doctrine was requested and so i cited those passages. to be perfectly honest, i really don't know what to make of the above.

[Grace Seeker]

According to wikipedia, no, at least not while Jesus (as) walked the earth.

"The turning point for Saul, as recounted in the book of Saint Luke, Acts of Apostles, was during a travel to a city in Asia, named Damascus, as part of the ongoing persecution plan to early and clandestine Christian communities, accompanied by a caravan of men and being ready to violently repress the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had not ever met nor ever seen, he was converted when the Resurrected Jesus appeared to him in all his luminous glory leaving him blind."

Neither do I see Jesus (as) appearing to Saul (basically a sworn enemy to the early Christians) after his ascension with a new revelation that Jesus (as) did not personally teach the 12 disciples while he was on earth. See "Paul's Gospel" by William R Newell at http://www.pilkingtonandsons.com/art...aulsgospel.pdf

I thought I would return here early since you some time ago so kindly asked my opinion regarding the topic under discussion and I have just recently answered something on this topic in a different part of the internet, thus it didn't seem like there was reason to delay posting on the question. It may not quite fit the question but I hope it helps some. Here is what I have written elsewhere:

I don't think that anyone is arguing that Jesus "established" Christianity. His followers didn't even seek to establish it; they just sought to live out their experience of God as revealed to them in the teaching, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and eventually others called their distinctive form of practice Christian.

Of course that which was later given the label "Christian" did represent a way of thinking and living that Jesus tried to establish among his disciples. So, maybe we should say that Jesus established the foundations of a way of... life and that some unknown folk in Antioch would establish the name now associated with that way of life. And over time many others would add their two cents worth of theology, practice, ritual, and cultural practices to produce the amalgam that the world knows as Christianity today.

With regard specifcally to Paul, I consider his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus to be a real encounter. The degree to which it was on the physical plane or on the spiritual plane is hard for me to say. But as both planes of existence are, to my thinking, very much real it doesn't matter. The encounter was every bit as real as Moses' encounter with God at Mount Sinai. That experience change Paul so that he ever after would think of Jesus as the Lord, a term that I am sure a strict Pharisee like Paul was until then would have known was reserved for the Lord God Almighty and him alone.

Paul then brings this high view of God and of the Torah (particularly the living Torah) with him as he becomes part of the nascent community of people following Jesus. I don't think that Paul had quite as much impact on the community in his own day as his writings have had on it in the succeeding centuries. And those generations have at the same time shaped the way we read Paul. In my opinion, those who don't like Paul (and the many who do) are reading him far too much through the lens of later interpretors rather than the context of a 1st century diaspora Jew in living helenized portions of the Roman Empire.

[Hamza Asadullah]

well if the above were true then that might be a problem. good thing for us that christ did actually speak of his redeeming blood:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. --- Matthew 26:28 NIV

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. --- Mark 10:45 NIV

so no, the fact that christ claimed to die for my sins, your sins and that of the rest of the world is quite clearly taught in the bible.

That is because the above is true and the Holy Bible actually makes it quite clear that forgiveness from sins comes from one’s sincerity in seeking forgiveness from Almighty God and from obedience to Him;



“Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High” Psalms 50:13-14

“I desired not sacrifices; I commanded not your fathers, when I stretched forth my hand to bring them out of Egypt, to offer burnt -- offerings to me, but only to obey my voice.” Jeremiah 7:21-22


And as for the innocent being made to pay for the sins of others, the Bible is also quite clear in that respect as well;



“And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, ‘Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.’ And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, ‘Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.’ And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book.’” Exodus 32:30-33


And from the words of Prophet Jesus(As) one can also conclude that his true teachings where in perfect harmony with these mentioned passages;



“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” Matthew 5:20


“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matthew 6:14-15


So many examples can be used from the Bible that one is hard pressed in understanding how a Christian can claim to adhere to the Bible, and yet follow a totally opposite course. Here is yet further examples of what the Bible says;


“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Deuteronomy 24:16


“But the children of the murderers he put not to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Lord commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.’” 2 Kings 14:6


“But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Jeremiah 31:30


Again, the Bible states clearly how salvation can be achieved;



“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14


“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:7


Now with respect to these Biblical passages, it is very clear indeed that the Paulanistic teachings of the Christian Church are in no way harmonious with the teachings of Prophet Jesus(as) and The Holy Bible itself; Paulanist statements such as;



“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’” Galatians 3:13


How Paul can tie that passage in with Prophet Jesus(as) is a far stretch to say the least, as this passage is making reference to the accursed as being the enemies of Almighty God, and to even consider Prophet Jesus(as) as an enemy of Almighty God (Au’dhu-Billah) is to say that he was alienated from His Grace and this does absolutely no honour to this most mighty messenger of Almighty God. This is a serious offence and charge to levy against Prophet Jesus(as), and it does him no honour or respect. Jesus(as) made himself very clear as to what his mission entailed;



“Think not that I am come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these commandments and teach men to do so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.” Matthew 5:17 – 20

And Jesus(as) also made it very clear how one could achieve salvation;


“And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’ And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ He saith unto him, ‘Which?’ Jesus said, ‘Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’” Matthew 19:16-19

Jesus(as) preached the keeping of all the commandments, which number 613 as opposed to the Christian belief of only 10. Among these commandments, to which the Christians fall short of, is to refrain from alcohol (see Leviticus 10:9, Proverbs 20:1, Isaiah 5:22, Hosea 4:11 & Daniel 1:8), to avoid the flesh of swine (see Leviticus 11:8) and to abide by circumcision (see Genesis 17:10-14 & Luke 2:21).

In no way did Prophet Jesus(as) EVER cater to the pagan belief of original sin and blood atonement, and no better proof of that than his own words that we have just covered.

Taken from Issa Ahmad Khalid

[MustafaMc]

With regard specifcally to Paul, I consider his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus to be a real encounter. The degree to which it was on the physical plane or on the spiritual plane is hard for me to say. But as both planes of existence are, to my thinking, very much real it doesn't matter. The encounter was every bit as real as Moses' encounter with God at Mount Sinai. That experience change Paul so that he ever after would think of Jesus as the Lord, a term that I am sure a strict Pharisee like Paul was until then would have known was reserved for the Lord God Almighty and him alone.

I can understand that Paul did experience a 'paradigm shift' that transformed him from a persecutor of followers of the Way to the strongest proponent of what we now know as Christianity. It is interesting that you mention Paul along with Moses as Mr. Newell also did, "Just as God chose Moses to be the revelator to Israel of the Ten Commandments... so God chose Saul of Tarsus to be the revelator and unfolder of these mighty truths connected with our Lord's death, burial, resurrection, and His ascended Person."

Paul then brings this high view of God and of the Torah (particularly the living Torah) with him as he becomes part of the nascent community of people following Jesus. I don't think that Paul had quite as much impact on the community in his own day as his writings have had on it in the succeeding centuries. And those generations have at the same time shaped the way we read Paul. In my opinion, those who don't like Paul (and the many who do) are reading him far too much through the lens of later interpretors rather than the context of a 1st century diaspora Jew in living helenized portions of the Roman Empire.

I don't see that Paul brought a high view of the Torah with him as he taught contrary to the Law. I see that he was a strict Jew up to a point and then rejected everything Jewish (circumcision, dietary restrictions, observing Sabbath, etc.) in favor of faith in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

[Grace Seeker]

Indeed, Paul says that he counted all those things you listed as rubbish in comparison. But it remains true that he had a high view of the Torah, for the Torah and the ceremonial law are not equivalent.

The goal of Torah is ultimately to live in a right relationship with God. Paul shows that though he had kept all of these things inviolate most of his life, that it had not helped him to achieve a right relationship with God. He had kept the ceremonial laws, but it did not result in enabling him to keep Torah. But faith does. And Paul uses the example of Abraham who was credited with being righteous BEFORE any law was given or he performed any ritual like circumcision to illustrate that righteousness as demanded by Torah comes not from performing ceremonial rituals, but from having a living faith that lives in connection with God. To Paul, that is what it really means to be a true Jew like he argues Abraham was. Then after that he finally adds one thing new, he says that for him the way to faith that connected him with God was found in Jesus the Messiah.

[Grace Seeker]

Probably only one or two will be interested in this. But for those who seek to understand (rather than simply argue otherwise) why I say that I don't think that Paul was the founder nor even the reinventor of Christianity, I encourage you to read some scholarly articles that present a different view of Paul than that which you may have previously been exposed to. It is even different than what most Protestant Christians in the last couple of hundred years have thought with regard to Paul and so some have termed it the "new perspective", but really it is a quite old perspective the new one was what was born out of the Protestant Reformation which I think reinterpreted Paul as being more against the Law than he really was.

Thr following article, "Paul and the Jewish Tradition: The Ideology of the Shema," shows Paul as a radical monotheist.

"The 'Righteousness' of Romans and Galatians, and the Gospel of Christ" shows how the core of Paul's message is indeed Jesus' own message applied to the new context of where Paul was engaged in ministry.

"Gospel and Theology in Galatians" examines the Jewish nature of what Paul presents as Gospel.

"Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire" explores the counter-imperial aspect of Paul’s essentially Jewish gospel.

"A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gender, and Geneaology in Romans" is a presentation of Paul's views regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus as being best understood from Jewish understanding of sacrifice and adoption. The author is herself a Jewish scholar.

[JPR]

That is because the above is true and the Holy Bible actually makes it quite clear that forgiveness from sins comes from one’s sincerity in seeking forgiveness from Almighty God and from obedience to Him

You are right, it starts with obedience to Him. First by acknowledging that Jesus is His son. If you sincerely seeks forgiveness from Almighty God, then you should believe in the one way He provided us with doing away with sins. Stop quoting from the Old Testament, because, well, it is the OLD one. Jesus gave a NEW covenant so you should start quoting from the NT to prove your points.

“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matthew 6:14-15

Funny you agree with this passage since it calls God "Father"

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’” Galatians 3:13


How Paul can tie that passage in with Prophet Jesus(as) is a far stretch to say the least, as this passage is making reference to the accursed as being the enemies of Almighty God, and to even consider Prophet Jesus(as) as an enemy of Almighty God (Au’dhu-Billah) is to say that he was alienated from His Grace and this does absolutely no honour to this most mighty messenger of Almighty God. This is a serious offence and charge to levy against Prophet Jesus(as), and it does him no honour or respect. Jesus(as) made himself very clear as to what his mission entailed;

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law; being made sin, or a sin-offering, for us, he was made a curse for us; not separated from God, but laid for a time under the Divine punishment. The heavy sufferings of the Son of God, more loudly warn sinners to flee from the wrath to come, than all the curses of the law; for how can God spare any man who remains under sin, seeing that he spared not his own Son, when our sins were charged upon him? Yet at the same time, Christ, as from the cross, freely invites sinners to take refuge in him. (Bible commentary)"


This is the main reason why you should stop copy-pasting from that particular Islamic website or commentator. It is ridden with holes in its logic, makes false assumptions and can't even properly back them up. I know you can't fathom what's just written here, but it's better constructed then the color commentary provided by whomever wrote the article you took.

[YoungCatholic]

The founder of my 2000 year old church, Jesus of course! ;D

[YusufNoor]

The founder of my 2000 year old church, Jesus of course! ;D

not if you're Catholic. Jesus was a monotheistic Jew, Catholicism is clearly NOT monotheistic as you pray to over 300 human beings and Catholic Popes and Kings killed THOUSANDS of former Jews for retaining any of their Jewishness.

and YOUR church isn't 2000 years old, shy by hundred years or. when Constantine moved the capitol to Constantinople would about be the time for the REAL start of the Catholic Church when the Bishop of Rome was trying to leverage his position over the Bishop of Constantinople.

the power vacuum left by those who followed the Emperor to his new digs was eventually filled by the families of the old Roman Senate. it is THEY who are probably the true founders of Catholicism.

and Allah knows best!

[Amigo]

It is not eashy to tell what Catholicism is, same thing for Christianity...
People are always able to make up their mind and define them as they wish.
At the end, it cames back to the individual. I know what I do and believe. Some people claiming to be the real Christian does not make it necessarly so.
Same thing, they are many Protestant who call themselves Catholic, and others who are not Catholic but who claim to know what Catholicism is...

As you said, God knows best!

[YoungCatholic]

not if you're Catholic. Jesus was a monotheistic Jew, Catholicism is clearly NOT monotheistic as you pray to over 300 human beings and Catholic Popes and Kings killed THOUSANDS of former Jews for retaining any of their Jewishness.

and YOUR church isn't 2000 years old, shy by hundred years or. when Constantine moved the capitol to Constantinople would about be the time for the REAL start of the Catholic Church when the Bishop of Rome was trying to leverage his position over the Bishop of Constantinople.

the power vacuum left by those who followed the Emperor to his new digs was eventually filled by the families of the old Roman Senate. it is THEY who are probably the true founders of Catholicism.

and Allah knows best!

Again, we believe that prayer does not equal worship. When we pray to saints we only venerate them not worship them. TRUE WORSHIP is only given to God and god alone. The statues can only remind us of the holy people who have gone before us. Honestly, I'm sure you moslems are just as tired with dealing with common misconceptions regarding your faith. We are too and this is one of them. Honestly, I'll tell you this, while I am here because I wish to converse with other non-catholics and on some occasions engage in debates. I am no apologist, if you ask me to state certain verses from the bible that suggest this or that, I will not be able to answer them. I'm merely a 16 year old boy with knowledge from only my school's religion class and some other online threads I've seen on the net. However, I can answer this question, why? Because this is grade one cathecism, I have always known that we catholics never worship to saints or mary and that we only venerate them. I've known this since I was a kid for pete's sake :D. And again, we catholics strictly believe in monotheism.

Since you made an accusation along those lines, you guys probably have problems with the trinity. As for an explanation, I certainly can give one but I doubt it would fulfill your satisfaction. The trinity is a catholic dogma, a belief with no proofbehind it. It is a belief that requires faith. I'm aware that you guys believe in Mary's immaculate conception, am I not right? If so, then I throw the question back at you. Why do you believe in Mary's Immaculate conception? What possible proof do you have that can back up these impossible claims? (None, you simply have to have faith).

Catholic Popes, kill people? I've never heard of that. Give me proof and I will respond to it.
Catholic Kings, I haven't heard of those either. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few. I've heard of a Catholic Queen who killed protestants but never heard of a Catholic King killing Jews. And if there were kings along the lines of which you claim. I would reply by saying how amusing and hypocritical that post of yours was. Don't even get me started on Moslem warlords and terrorists who have killed THOUSANDS of Christians for the sake of their faith. If you guys weren't so war-hungry, the crusades would never have begun in the first place. Please. King, queen, beggar, noble, we are all human. We make mistakes.

And your post about Constantinople was utter bogus.. Jesus Christ started the catholic church with Peter as it's head.

"You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church." - Bible

Rome has always been known as the official seat of Christianity. ALWAYS, until someone in the early 1000's named Micheal Cerularius questioned this and attacked the Pope, declaring that the church in Constantinople should recieve equal honor with the Church of Rome and should not subordinate to it. Pope Leo then sent two cardinals to Constantinople to mediate. Unfortunately, the cardinals were unsuccessful and excommunicated Cerularius. While in return, Cerularius excommunicated Leo. The result of this conflict was the greek schism or the the break of the eastern orthodox church from the RCC. The eastern orthodox church basically teach the same dontrines and have valid sacraments. However, they do not accept the authority of the Pope. So no, the bishop of Rome was not trying to leverage his position over the bishop of Constantinople. You got it all wrong my friend. In reality, it was the bishop of constantinople who tried to leverage his position against the Pope. Honestly, even Constantine himself (the founder of constantinople) recognized the authority of the Pope (church in Rome).

And as for this:

the power vacuum left by those who followed the Emperor to his new digs was eventually filled by the families of the old Roman Senate. it is THEY who are probably the true founders of Catholicism.

I'll be glad to give you an answer but I don't understand your post. Can you rephrase it a little?

By the way, I dont understand the ferocity behind that post of yours. I would understand if I wrote a slightly offending message but I did the complete opposite :D. I was under the impression that you guys reply nicely to nice posts on this forum :phew.

[YoungCatholic]

Same thing, they are many Protestant who call themselves Catholic

Hey, I'm a Catholic but I'm a Moslem too! Does that make sense to you?

and others who are not Catholic but who claim to know what Catholicism is...

See YusufNoor.

[YoungCatholic]

P.S. I know that majority of Moslems today are kind and peaceful people. But given YusufNoor's post about Catholic popes and kings killing Jews, I was urged to respond in the same manner. I apologize for anyone who took offense in my post.

[Amigo]

YC

Yeah, it can make sense to me. Actually Catholicism embrace more things that submission, because worship of God is more than submitting to him.
When I wrote that, I was thinking about Anglicans who call themselves Catholics. Of course some are not in the Catholic Church, but there are others who are actually entering the Catholic Church while retaining some Anglican patrimony: the Anglican Ordinariates.

[Amigo]

YC

Don't let the Sun set on your anger little brother!:) or in any spirit of vengeance.
God is self-sufficient and does not need any of our help. We can only share our joy of knowing him as well as our peace where they are received.

[YoungCatholic]

YC

Yeah, it can make sense to me. Actually Catholicism embrace more things that submission, because worship of God is more than submitting to him.
When I wrote that, I was thinking about Anglicans who call themselves Catholics. Of course some are not in the Catholic Church, but there are others who are actually entering the Catholic Church while retaining some Anglican patrimony: the Anglican Ordinariates.

Ohhh, I never knew that. Sorry Amigo, I misunderstood your post. :)

[Ramadhan]

This is the start of a series of articles that espouse the fact that Saul of Tarsus (mostly known by his roman name of paul) is actually the founder of christianity.



"The Problem with Paul" by C.M.




source: http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/problem.htm


The Problem with Paul

by C.M.

Paul was a Pharisee. One day he had a ‘revelation’. He changed his name from Saul to Paul, and straightway preached his revelations about the ‘Christ’ in the synagogues. Paul continued to have new ‘revelations’ that spoke ‘of’ and ‘for’ a Christ, but he was glaringly silent about the actual life of Yahushua (Jesus) and his teachings. In Paul’s epistles we find him using the words ‘Christ, Son of God, grace, redemption, resurrection, etc.’, but we learn little or nothing about Yahushua and his actual teachings. They’re virtually absent from Paul’s epistles. What we learn about are Paul’s revelations. Roughly 50% of the New Testament (13 epistles) is from Saul, a man who neither knew Yahushua in the flesh, nor was instructed by the apostles. Rather, he taught by unsubstantiated revelation, Ezekiel 13:2-9.

Paul considered himself the ‘apostle’ to the Gentiles, primarily because his doctrine (called ‘that way’, Acts 19:9, 23) was rejected by Jewish Christians and the Asian churches alike; and he was forced to seek converts who knew nothing of Yahudim (Jewish) customs and the Law. Paul’s doctrine was adverse to the teachings of Yahushua; and he was often in conflict with James, Peter, and John; the real apostles. And by the way, Paul was not an apostle.

Paul spent an inordinate amount of time defending himself and his teachings from accusations of guile, lies, and covetousness. None of the real apostles were so accused. Paul’s core philosophy of justification by faith and abolition of Torah Law stands in opposition to Yahushua’s statements in the gospels. Paul thought nothing of lying or practicing pagan customs if it meant gaining a new convert to his own brand of salvation, Romans 3:7, I Corinthians 10:14-21, 9:19-22.

Paul’s words speak for themselves. His use of personal pronouns in his epistles (I, me, my, mine) is three times that of any other writer. Paul urged his followers to follow him. He preached by revelation. Paul preached his doctrine in the ‘name’ of Christ, but his teachings were not in alignment with Yahushua’s teachings, John 5:43.


More from http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/problem.htm

[Ramadhan]

Who was Paul?

Since Paul is so widely credited with starting Christianity, let's
take a moment to examine Paul. Paul, also known as Saul from
Tarsus, the very center of Baal-worship.

Paul proclaimed himself to be an Apostle of the Gentiles, but was
he? Yahshua chose 12 disciples for 12 tribes. He never spoke of a
13th. He did, however, speak of another who would come in his own
name and be accepted over him.

Who has 13 books in the New Testament even though he never set eyes
on the son of the Most High God? Who is so widely accepted and
glorified all throughout Christianity? Most would rather quote Paul
than one of the real Apostles. While the REAL Apostles wrote about
the life of Yahshuah, Paul wrote of his own view point and personal
ideology.

Yahshua also warned us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, of
which Paul was one. He warned against and condemned the Pharisees
repeatedly. Pharisee Paul NEVER preached against them.


Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake [it]
not
to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Mark 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the
leaven
of the Pharisees, and [of] the leaven of Herod.

AND

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if
another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

What person came in his own name (without witnesses) who received
more coverage in the Bible than Yahshua or his 12 personally and
publicly appointed apostles?

Paul's gospel was altogether different than that of Yahshua's.
Yahshua came to free people from political bondage. He came to
fulfill the laws of the Torah and of the Most High, which protected
the people. He tried to have the laws reinstated and applied
correctly.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the
prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. 5:18 For verily I
say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be
accomplished. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in
the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Paul, on the other hand, was in favor of oppression. He preached
not for but against the social laws and against the social system of
the Torah. He preached against material independence, against
social security, against freedom from oppression and exploitation.
Paul was against observance of laws ensuring freedom, independence
and equality.

Paul wanted us to believe that the New Covenant replaced the Old
Covenant. And it was Paul's teachings that were accepted and placed
in dominance after 300 years of persecutions wiped out the early
church. The Torah, Feasts, and Commandments were replaced by the
laws of laziness and lawlessness.

More from http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/zeoli.htm

[Bintulislam]

Again, we believe that prayer does not equal worship. When we pray to saints we only venerate them not worship them. TRUE WORSHIP is only given to God and god alone. The statues can only remind us of the holy people who have gone before us. Honestly, I'm sure you moslems are just as tired with dealing with common misconceptions regarding your faith. We are too and this is one of them. Honestly, I'll tell you this, while I am here because I wish to converse with other non-catholics and on some occasions engage in debates. I am no apologist, if you ask me to state certain verses from the bible that suggest this or that, I will not be able to answer them. I'm merely a 16 year old boy with knowledge from only my school's religion class and some other online threads I've seen on the net. However, I can answer this question, why? Because this is grade one cathecism, I have always known that we catholics never worship to saints or mary and that we only venerate them. I've known this since I was a kid for pete's sake :D. And again, we catholics strictly believe in monotheism.

Since you made an accusation along those lines, you guys probably have problems with the trinity. As for an explanation, I certainly can give one but I doubt it would fulfill your satisfaction. The trinity is a catholic dogma, a belief with no proofbehind it. It is a belief that requires faith. I'm aware that you guys believe in Mary's immaculate conception, am I not right? If so, then I throw the question back at you. Why do you believe in Mary's Immaculate conception? What possible proof do you have that can back up these impossible claims? (None, you simply have to have faith).

Catholic Popes, kill people? I've never heard of that. Give me proof and I will respond to it.
Catholic Kings, I haven't heard of those either. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few. I've heard of a Catholic Queen who killed protestants but never heard of a Catholic King killing Jews. And if there were kings along the lines of which you claim. I would reply by saying how amusing and hypocritical that post of yours was. Don't even get me started on Moslem warlords and terrorists who have killed THOUSANDS of Christians for the sake of their faith. If you guys weren't so war-hungry, the crusades would never have begun in the first place. Please. King, queen, beggar, noble, we are all human. We make mistakes.

And your post about Constantinople was utter bogus.. Jesus Christ started the catholic church with Peter as it's head.

"You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church." - Bible

Rome has always been known as the official seat of Christianity. ALWAYS, until someone in the early 1000's named Micheal Cerularius questioned this and attacked the Pope, declaring that the church in Constantinople should recieve equal honor with the Church of Rome and should not subordinate to it. Pope Leo then sent two cardinals to Constantinople to mediate. Unfortunately, the cardinals were unsuccessful and excommunicated Cerularius. While in return, Cerularius excommunicated Leo. The result of this conflict was the greek schism or the the break of the eastern orthodox church from the RCC. The eastern orthodox church basically teach the same dontrines and have valid sacraments. However, they do not accept the authority of the Pope. So no, the bishop of Rome was not trying to leverage his position over the bishop of Constantinople. You got it all wrong my friend. In reality, it was the bishop of constantinople who tried to leverage his position against the Pope. Honestly, even Constantine himself (the founder of constantinople) recognized the authority of the Pope (church in Rome).

And as for this:

the power vacuum left by those who followed the Emperor to his new digs was eventually filled by the families of the old Roman Senate. it is THEY who are probably the true founders of Catholicism.

I'll be glad to give you an answer but I don't understand your post. Can you rephrase it a little?

By the way, I dont understand the ferocity behind that post of yours. I would understand if I wrote a slightly offending message but I did the complete opposite :D. I was under the impression that you guys reply nicely to nice posts on this forum :phew.

Okay....a little suggestion for everyone here...when people of two faiths sit together and 'want' to talk about their 'faith' then in my opinion its better to come forward with the commonalities instead of going the other way round like YC here urges that Catholism is monotheistic while br. Yousuf says its not.So lets Yc define monotheism in his understanding of his religion.Because we Muslims are also monotheistic.:)

[Ramadhan]

Paul Of Tarsus – The Founder Of Modern Christianity


Contrary to what every Christian believes, it was not Jesus Christ nor his disciple Peter was the founder of modern Christianity, but it was Paul of Tarsus also known as Saul, the Roman centurion who was once responsible in persecuting the early classic Christians prior to his alleged conversion and later known as “St. Paul”, when he proclaim himself to be an apostle of Jesus Christ based on his story of his way to Damascus road incident.



Within a span of time, he started all the staggering innovations on the classic religion, in the guise that what he has done comes from what Jesus Christ has instructed and revealed to him. He was then responsible in carving a niche for a new version to the very basic foundation of Christendom from its classic form into what Christianity is known today.


Paul’s influence and power is unprecedented in any event of human history that Christian scholars who were compiling the “New Testament” seemed to favor Paul’s teachings rather than that of Jesus Christ by their inclusion of Paul’s letters and his works in the compiled scripture of what is known today as the “Holy Bible”.


No less than thirteen epistles in the new testament with special mention of the Acts of the Apostle are attributed to Paul’s authorship and it comprises a quarter of the new testament though only seven of them as Christian scholars suggest, are authentic works of Paul. These are Romans; I and II Corinthians; Galatians; Philippians; Philemon; and I Thessalonians.


It can be noted that the longer part of the Acts of the Apostle is devoted to glorifying Paul to portray him as a just man and the credible apostle of Jesus Christ, however, the impression of Paul’s importance, both as leader and teacher in the Nazarene movement established by Jesus, and led in Jesus’ absence by his brother James, the Just, is by Paul’s own testimony is fictitious.


The innovations made by Paul on the religion through his letters and teachings has opened the door to a series of man made doctrines and beliefs pass on by the church, a complete deviation and transformation of the true message originally preach and taught by Jesus Christ.


Among the innovations made by Paul, except for item c) the rest were later affirmed and sanctioned by the church in the Council of Nicea in the year 325 CE were as follows:
a) The doctrine of trinity which is a pagan inspired tradition that attributed God in more than one person.
b) The divinity of Jesus Christ, to support and justify the trinity doctrine making Christ part of godhead, being the “begotten son” of God, thus making it appear that God has a family.
c) Meat of swine (pork) all along forbidden since time immemorial by the prophets sent by God and by God Himself to eat, in no time allowed and approved by Paul for human consumption.
d) Paul’s doctrine of salvation is anchored on pagan tradition of salvation through crucifixion which is now the basic doctrine and belief of the modern day Christianity. A departure to the salvation preached by Jesus Christ, which is based on true monotheism and individual accountability for its deeds and sins.


Paul, with all of his intention and purpose has successfully edify Jesus Christ to be part of the godhead being the “begotten son of God” who was crucified for mankind’s sins thus reinforcing and sealing the belief of the doctrine of trinity and the religion of convenience with no more individual accountability for its deeds and sins.
Paul must have driven and motivated the changes when one day during his ministerial debut, he has found out that monotheism or the belief of one God on one hand, and one who would be accountable to his deeds on the other hand, are not that appealing among the pagans and gentiles whom he wanted them converted into his fold because they consist of the biggest number of the populace during that time.


In his desire to win them, he accorded the changes based on their traditions. With the changes, Paul has established a completely different version of Christianity, apart that of Jesus Christ, which was solely accorded to the pagans and gentiles and thus championing their cause. Not long enough Paul’s established religion becomes so influential and powerful in Europe and the nearby environs.


It was during the reign of Emperor Constantine that Paul’s established church has gained the needed break which has to help quell the emperor’s woes. Constantine’s empire is marred with insurgency and the church of Paul fills and serves as the blocking force to reckon with and eventually it has been instrumental in stopping them with big success.
To return that favor, Constantine himself has converted to Paul’s brand of Christianity and has made a decree to formally declare the religion of Paul to be the empire’s state religion and all other religions were prohibited to practice and declared them illegal.


Since then, it was the Pauline Christianity( trinitarian) who has been dominating the scene at the expense of other religions and the the classic Christians (unitarian) though their number are dwindling had never abandoned their cause but remained steadfast more than ever to their faith based on the original message and teachings of Jesus Christ.


http://affleap.com/paul-of-tarsus-th...-christianity/

[Ramadhan]

So it is clear that Saul (aka Paul) of Tarsus is the actual founder of christianity.

If our christian friends want more proof, I will gladly provide more :)

[YoungCatholic]

1) naidamar

Please, I beg you, post that on Catholic Answers Forums. :D

2) Bintulislam

Hi there! To answer your question, monotheism is a belief in one God. And this was taught to me by my 1st grade religion teacher together with the trinity, the commandments and basic Catholicism. As stated in the first commadment and the nicene creed, we catholics believe in monotheism.

Apostles Creed
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended in heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Hope that cleared things up :p

[Amigo]

Naidamar,
Interesting that you would use John 5:43 :) It appear that perhaps at least half of it is corruct since you are using the other half as a truth...

Well, there is a better candidate for that 'other who comes in his own name', but it is good that you receive evidence directly from God than suggestions from me a fellow man.

[Ramadhan]

1) naidamar Please, I beg you, post that on Catholic Answers Forums.

Why? I am not a member of any non-muslim forums. I think it is just a waste of time.

Since you are a catholic here, why don't you refute the articles I posted, and why they are not evidence as to why Paul is the founder of christianity.

[Ramadhan]

Naidamar, Interesting that you would use John 5:43 It appear that perhaps at least half of it is corruct since you are using the other half as a truth...

what does this even mean?
Do you want to elaborate.

I'm sorry if I dont understand the language of catholicsm.

Well, there is a better candidate for that 'other who comes in his own name',

Please tell us who is this better candidate who comes in his own name? I cannot think of anyone else but Paul.

but it is good that you receive evidence directly from God than suggestions from me a fellow man.

what does this even mean?

another catholics language?

[Ramadhan]

More articles for you to read, my christian friends. This article contains other undeniable evidence how Paul is the founder of christianity:


The Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity

by Lewis Loflin

Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever, other than perhaps the disputed Gnostic Gospels.

While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of the faith, Paul's role in defining Christianity can't be ignored. "Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time." The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism. His worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion. See Marcion. The Church in its struggles with both Marcion and other fellow Gnostics was forced to define itself and launch an internal war to silence opponents.
What is shown below is taken word for word from The Sierra Reference Encyclopedia.
Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved.
PAUL, ST.
PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of Pauline Christianity. His name was originally Saul. He later claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel. This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown in Tarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.
While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).
Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.
The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at the time but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes. On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced a vision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of King Aretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."
After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.
Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts with Paul's earlier and more authentic account in Galatians 2.
Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human saviour from political bondage he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus. The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion of eucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Church did not practise the Eucharist.


More from:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

[YoungCatholic]

Why? I am not a member of any non-muslim forums. I think it is just a waste of time.

Since you are a catholic here, why don't you refute the articles I posted, and why they are not evidence as to why Paul is the founder of christianity.

Why not? It's just a few clicks? Anyway, since you have so much proof, I think you should wake us all up and tell us that we've been following a false religion. I mean, it is your job to bring the truth to others is it not? I cannot answer your question myself. I have very limited knowledge when it comes to apologetics and this is my first time hearing such a theory thus I cannot refute it. But, I guarantee you, go to CAF, they will be able to answer your question throughly.

And really? Signing up in other religious forums is a waste of time? Oh gee, am I wasting time right now ^o).

[Ramadhan]

Why not? It's just a few clicks?

A few clicks which I better spend on making beneficial posts for other muslism or for enlighting non-muslims who are interested in Islam, and hence signing up here, like yourself.

And really? Signing up in other religious forums is a waste of time? Oh gee, am I wasting time right now

signing up in other religious forums is a waste of time for ME.Did I say I speak for anyone else?
If you think you are wasting time here, no one is forcing you to spend time here, no?

Try to think logically next time, and with evidence.

I have very limited knowledge when it comes to apologetics and this is my first time hearing such a theory thus I cannot refute it.

That's alright if you can't refute the evidence presented in articles. Many members and guests can benefit from reading them.
And by the way, they are not just theories, but they are mostly facts, eg. Have you really opened your bible? Have you counted how many percents it contains the sayings/actions of Jesus (p) (and of the little there's how mnay are multiples?) and compare that to how many by saul/paul?

[YoungCatholic]

And by the way, they are not just theories, but they are mostly facts

Ohhhhhh facts, well since you're so sure of yourself, I invite you to post on CAF during your free time. Seriously, you can't call it a fact if you refuse to ask a knowledgeable catholic apologetic on his theory. You know what's a fact? Jesus' crucification and I find it amusing how you guys are able to brush off history like it never happened. You can't call something a fact unless you question it's authencity. If you want to know the truth, I suggest you learn both sides of the battlefield THEN decide for yourself. Otherwise, if keep on insisting to yourself that what you believe is the truth without bothering to ask the opposition for an explanation, then you are only fooling yourself into thinking that what you believe is a fact.

Otherwise, I might as well go on some anti-Islamic board and claim everything on it to be true without asking for your side of the story. See were I'm going?

[YoungCatholic]

typo corrections

to ask a knowledgeable catholic apologetic on his side of the story*
see where i'm going*

I need that message editor haha. Goodnight everyone:D

[Ramadhan]

Ohhhhhh facts, well since you're so sure of yourself, I invite you to post on CAF during your free time. Seriously, you can't call it a fact if you refuse to ask a knowledgeable catholic apologetic on his theory. You know what's a fact? Jesus' crucification and I find it amusing how you guys are able to brush off history like it never happened. You can't call something a fact unless you question it's authencity. If you want to know the truth, I suggest you learn both sides of the battlefield THEN decide for yourself. Otherwise, if keep on insisting to yourself that what you believe is the truth without bothering to ask the opposition for an explanation, then you are only fooling yourself into thinking that what you believe is a fact.

Instead of writing meaningless long sentences as above, why dont you bring "facts" and "evidence" like what I do.
Your opnions means zilch. Facts and evidence matter.

You seem in big denial. I know you don't know much about catholicism even if you are a cradle catholic. If you want to, I will give you more facts and evidence regarding bible, christianity and catholicism.

[Ramadhan]

Otherwise, I might as well go on some anti-Islamic board and claim everything on it to be true without asking for your side of the story. See were I'm going?

No one is preventing you to go anti Islamic sites. After all there are millions of them, an addition of one amateur Islamophobe cannot possibly make much difference.

And if I am spreading lies about christianity, then please refute me.

I have asked you several times to do just that, and instead of refuting the points I made, you keep crying on and on about how it is unfair that I am talking bad about christianity.

[YoungCatholic]

You claim to speak the truth but you refuse to seek and test it. Catholic Answers Forums naidamar, post your theories there and I assure you, you will be refuted easily. Again, I am no Apologetic. I only know the basics together with a little bit of church history from school and a little more information in my time in CAF. I have never had such a theory thrown before me as what you are doing at the moment. I have never engaged in any serious apologetic debate but I have watched and read quite a number and never did your theory come up. I have never heard of the theory of which you speak, this is my first time hearing it with details thus, I am not able to refute it. However, I assure you that you are wrong and invite you to debate with real experienced Catholic Apologists. The apologists over there at CAF are very through, convincing, and are able to back up there claims with numerous sources. Most importantly, they do not deflect, dodge or avoid any question you throw at them and I say this with all honesty because I've read their posts several times. Apologetics isn't my ground. If you really want to debate with me about Catholicism, Catholic Miracles is my strongest point. It is a topic which I have most interest in and you are more than welcome to challenge me there.

However I do know that your theory was popularized from the protestants. I've heard of a claim from non-catholics that Paul started our church before I came here. But I never got into any of the details. Together goes for other theories such as Constantine started the church, the Romans started the church, I've heard of them but I never got to know any of the details. Now I'm assuming that the theory you have stated before me is from a protestant source? Or is this a completely new theory made by you or some other person? Goodnight, I'll check again in the morning.

[Ramadhan]

You claim to speak the truth but you refuse to seek and test it. Catholic Answers Forums naidamar, post your theories there and I assure you, you will be refuted easily. Again, I am no Apologetic. I only know the basics together with a little bit of church history from school and a little more information in my time in CAF. I have never had such a theory thrown before me as what you are doing at the moment. I have never engaged in any serious apologetic debate but I have watched and read quite a number and never did your theory come up. blah...blah..blah....

Youngcatholic, are you really very dense?

Instead of crying the same thing again and again and again (you actually used the same sentences in THREE posts), why don't you start refuting my points. If the subject is out of your depth, can you just please sit quiet in the corner instead of whining on and on and on. I have responded and addressed your whiny points the first time around.
No offense, but I did not personally ask you to respond to my articles. There are other christians here.
If you want to discuss anything other than "who is the founder of christianity" go to appropriate threads, or start your own. Your repeating posts already qualified under definition of spamming in this board and you repeatedly also have promoted a non-muslim forum. I am patient enough for not removing them. But I have limits too.

[May Ayob]

Brother youngcatholic, Are you serious?

It is very obvious that fact that it is Paul who made up most of the theories in christianity, i think you christian or some of you have sometype of internal ego inside of you which make you so fanatic that makes you very blind to see even the basics of truth , i advise to seek for your self go and study the history of you christian faith and there you will know very well that without Paul christianity wouldn't have been christianity, i don't understand why you can't accept this , while you're Vatican is already legislating many things to be legal that the Bible completely condemns.

I think you should put down your sense of ego and fanaticism why can't you accept the fact that people don't want to become christian , this is not something that is by your choice or by the choice of anyone , God created them and God knows their faith , this is none of your business ,Guidance is from God and not from you, or any other person who's only interested in materialistic means ,

i personally think you should start working on yourself then look around you trying to evanaglise people, How are you so sure that you are going to Heaven huh? What makes so sure that you can garuntee yourself Salvation ?

The Holy Quran says:
.( It will not be in accordance with your desires (Muslims), nor those of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), whosoever works evil, will have the recompense thereof, and he will not find any protector or helper besides Allâh. )


IT is only the right of God to judge people ,and you have no right at all it only shows that you disrespect your creator to go around to people saying i'm going to heaven and you're not , this is a great transgression .

2ndly, I'd like to point out that please if you want to be a true beliver in your own faith then go and study the life of Christ peace and blessing be upon him it will humble you to realise that he was a humble servant of his Lord and he will never reject submitting to his Creator :),
Christ was a softhearted tender man who rejects evil and would never transgress beyond the boudaries of his Lord , and if you were his true follower you would act like him Faith is a word of action please keep that in mind:)

also i just wanted to say i now understand very much why Ghandi said :" I like your Christ but not your christians, your Christ is so unlike your christian"

If prophet Isaa was here today he would have condemn all your false theories that confused mankind and made them distressed to me you Catholics are doing everything the Bible is telling you Not to do, how are you a christian or even have faith in God when the Vatican himself and his own Family keeps molesting children what a shame, and oo yeah i thought that he has recently said that the bible is not the truth and it is not fully the Word of God ???

I'd like an explanation , i have soooo many so called "misconceptions" about Catholics it would be just delightfull for you to satisfy my answers.

Thank you very much

[Hamza Asadullah]

You claim to speak the truth but you refuse to seek and test it. Catholic Answers Forums naidamar, post your theories there and I assure you, you will be refuted easily. Again, I am no Apologetic. I only know the basics together with a little bit of church history from school and a little more information in my time in CAF. I have never had such a theory thrown before me as what you are doing at the moment. I have never engaged in any serious apologetic debate but I have watched and read quite a number and never did your theory come up. I have never heard of the theory of which you speak, this is my first time hearing it with details thus, I am not able to refute it. However, I assure you that you are wrong and invite you to debate with real experienced Catholic Apologists. The apologists over there at CAF are very through, convincing, and are able to back up there claims with numerous sources. Most importantly, they do not deflect, dodge or avoid any question you throw at them and I say this with all honesty because I've read their posts several times. Apologetics isn't my ground. If you really want to debate with me about Catholicism, Catholic Miracles is my strongest point. It is a topic which I have most interest in and you are more than welcome to challenge me there.

However I do know that your theory was popularized from the protestants. I've heard of a claim from non-catholics that Paul started our church before I came here. But I never got into any of the details. Together goes for other theories such as Constantine started the church, the Romans started the church, I've heard of them but I never got to know any of the details. Now I'm assuming that the theory you have stated before me is from a protestant source? Or is this a completely new theory made by you or some other person? Goodnight, I'll check again in the morning.

Greetings Young Catholic,

I am happy that you are here to clarify your views on Islam as you have mentioned in one of your previous posts and that is something all should do rather than accept the false and grossly misleading stereotyping by the deceptive media. If you ever have any questions at all regarding Islamic related questions then please do not hesitate to ask.

However you should also do your own unbiased research into the concepts such as original sin, blood atonement, cruci-fiction to eradicate original sin from mankind,incarnation,the trinity and the theotakas all of which were attributed to Christianity by Paul and theologians after Jesus but do not have ANY basis in the words and teachings of God or Jesus nor were they ever taught nor were they ever mentioned by ANY Prophet, Jesus or God.

All of the revelations of God from Adam(As) until the last revelation given to Prophet Muhammad(Pbuh) have been consistent to true monotheisms and this includes the revelation which was given to Moses which Jesus himself admitted he came to re-establish. He said "I DID NOT COME TO DESTROY BUT TO FULFILL"and if you look at his teachings they ALL conform to that of the revelation Moses but it was only after Jesus that Paul wanted to destroy much of the original law and therefore he transformed the law to that of his own and went against the strict monotheism that Jesus proclaimed into a religion that is closer to Greek mythology, than it is towards either Judaism or Islam. Things like the "only begotten son", atonement for the sins of humanity etc. were all alien to the strict monotheism of Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad and ALL the prophets of Israel (Peace be upon them all).

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard says regarding Paul: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

So clearly look into the words and teachings of Jesus and God and you will see in their words that NONE of these pagan concepts were EVER taught or ever mentioned. If they are so fundamental then HOW could God or Jesus not even ever mention them? Did God forget to mention such fundamental beliefs that they were only discovered well after Jesus? Is it that these laws were hidden from the words of God and Jesus but somehow they were thought up by a man who never even met Jesus nor did he have anything to do with the revelation from God.

Many of these concepts were created and solidified in the nicean council meeting but they are still up for being edited and changed today with many theorists coming up with their own interpretations of these concepts which are different from others.

This is very interesting and relevant to the discussion:

In Christianity the doctrine of atonement is very diverse unlike the doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation that were precisely defined and agreed upon by the early ecumenical councils. Historically, it was not formulated with that same level of precision, thus having many differing theories, depending on which aspect of the work of Christ is emphasized. There exist four major theories: 1) ransom theory, 2) satisfaction theory, 3) moral influence theory, and 4) penal substitution theory.

Today, an increasing number of Christian theologians argue that none of the existing theories by itself makes sense fully, and that a new approach comprehensive enough to incorporate all the existing theories is needed to understand the whole picture of Christ's atoning work. Interestingly, this new approach tends to argue that Christ's sacrificial death was not absolutely necessary, making Christianity more compatible with other religions at least on two issues: whether or not the priest himself should die; and, more generally, whether or not the way of expiation should involve anyone's death.

Here we have a fundamental concept of Christianity which is NOT even properly defined as yet and as such Christian scholars agree that this theory is confusing and does not quite make sense. Simply because it was NEVER taught by ANY Prophet, Jesus or God and therefore was a creation of man who brought it in and falsely attributed it to the teachings of God and Jesus.

So research for yourself and ask of God sincerely to open your heart to the truth and God will show you the right direction.

“Whom Allah does guide, he is on the right path. Whom He rejects from His guidance, such are the persons who lose.” (7:178)

[Amigo]

There seem to be too much faith in 'refuting'

Let me ask,
Do you really think that someone refuting you makes you wrong?
Do you really think that YOU refuting someone makes you right?

Eternal truth does not depend and card-game skills!

A 5 years old can have the right fight while a 50 years old got it all wrong.

So chat and discuss calmly like brothers and with love.
Faith is about gratitude in the heart. Right articulations will reveal themselves from such a heart like a tree growing from a good seed.
"Happy are the pure in heart, they shall see God"

[YusufNoor]

Again, we believe that prayer does not equal worship.

and so if a suicide bomber kills a member of your family thinking thinking that is an appropriate way to worship God, would you accept it? prayer equals worship whether you accept it or not!

When we pray to saints we only venerate them not worship them. ^o)

here are some synonyms for venerate:

Synonyms: adore, deify, glorify, revere, reverence, worship

TRUE WORSHIP is only given to God and god alone. The statues can only remind us of the holy people who have gone before us. Honestly, I'm sure you moslems are just as tired with dealing with common misconceptions regarding your faith.

hey sparky, the word is Muslim. and we are educating you to the truth about your religion. you are the one with misconceptions. i come from your world, no version of Christianity correctly treats Jesus, peace be upon him, as a true Prophet of Allah. some are nearer to the truth, but there are NO, ZERO documents dating from the time of Jesus claiming that he is a god OR that he should be worshiped.

We are too and this is one of them. Honestly, I'll tell you this, while I am here because I wish to converse with other non-catholics and on some occasions engage in debates. I am no apologist, if you ask me to state certain verses from the bible that suggest this or that, I will not be able to answer them. I'm merely a 16 year old boy with knowledge from only my school's religion class and some other online threads I've seen on the net. However, I can answer this question, why? Because this is grade one cathecism, I have always known that we catholics never worship to saints or mary and that we only venerate them. I've known this since I was a kid for pete's sake :D. And again, we catholics strictly believe in monotheism.

you can't be a MONOTHEIST and have 3 gods in 1, or 1 god in three. you may wish it to be true, but that doesn't make it true. i wish i was a millionaire, but no matter how much i do, the money just doesn' t seem at appear! go figure

Since you made an accusation along those lines, you guys probably have problems with the trinity. As for an explanation, I certainly can give one but I doubt it would fulfill your satisfaction. The trinity is a catholic dogma, a belief with no proofbehind it. It is a belief that requires faith. I'm aware that you guys believe in Mary's immaculate conception, am I not right? If so, then I throw the question back at you. Why do you believe in Mary's Immaculate conception? What possible proof do you have that can back up these impossible claims? (None, you simply have to have faith).

what does virgin birth have to do with dividing your god into 3 parts? it's a non sequitor.
Catholic Popes, kill people? I've never heard of that. Give me proof and I will respond to it.
Catholic Kings, I haven't heard of those either. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few. I've heard of a Catholic Queen who killed protestants but never heard of a Catholic King killing Jews. And if there were kings along the lines of which you claim. I would reply by saying how amusing and hypocritical that post of yours was. Don't even get me started on Moslem warlords and terrorists who have killed THOUSANDS of Christians for the sake of their faith. If you guys weren't so war-hungry, the crusades would never have begun in the first place. Please. King, queen, beggar, noble, we are all human. We make mistakes.

you mean you aren't old enough to have learned about the Spanish Inquisition? you apeak of Muslims killing Christians for the sake of their religion; Muslims ARE NOT ALLOWED to do such a thing! did you know that?
you speak of Christians and Protestants killing each other, did you know or were you aware the in the Christian Wars of Reformation, SIX MILLION people died in the Germanic States? SIX MILLION people how many native Americans were murded by the Catholic Monarchs of Castile? 10 Million? MORE? did you know that when Islam initially spread, Jews and Christian minorities found PROTECTION under the Muslims? protection from who? BLOODY CHRISTIANS! don't worry, you are young, you still have time to learn the Truth, you just won't find it on any of your Catholic websites.


And your post about Constantinople was utter bogus.. Jesus Christ started the catholic church with Peter as it's head.

"You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church." - Bible

Rome has always been known as the official seat of Christianity. ALWAYS, until someone in the early 1000's named Micheal Cerularius questioned this and attacked the Pope, declaring that the church in Constantinople should recieve equal honor with the Church of Rome and should not subordinate to it. Pope Leo then sent two cardinals to Constantinople to mediate. Unfortunately, the cardinals were unsuccessful and excommunicated Cerularius. While in return, Cerularius excommunicated Leo. The result of this conflict was the greek schism or the the break of the eastern orthodox church from the RCC. The eastern orthodox church basically teach the same dontrines and have valid sacraments. However, they do not accept the authority of the Pope. So no, the bishop of Rome was not trying to leverage his position over the bishop of Constantinople. You got it all wrong my friend. In reality, it was the bishop of constantinople who tried to leverage his position against the Pope. Honestly, even Constantine himself (the founder of constantinople) recognized the authority of the Pope (church in Rome).

what about the Popes in Avignon?

And as for this:

the power vacuum left by those who followed the Emperor to his new digs was eventually filled by the families of the old Roman Senate. it is THEY who are probably the true founders of Catholicism.

I'll be glad to give you an answer but I don't understand your post. Can you rephrase it a little?

By the way, I dont understand the ferocity behind that post of yours. I would understand if I wrote a slightly offending message but I did the complete opposite :D. I was under the impression that you guys reply nicely to nice posts on this forum :phew.

i was being nice. offering the Truth to some is VERY NICE. you shouldn't be offended by the truth!

And your post about Constantinople was utter bogus.. Jesus Christ started the catholic church with Peter as it's head.

"You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church." - Bible

Rome has always been known as the official seat of Christianity.

so you say Rome has always been know as the "official" seat of Christianity AND the Jesus, peace be upon started Christianity; so let me ask you: according to your "books," when was Jesus in Rome?

adios

[siam]

scholars feel 6 of the 13 epistles are forged---written by someone pretending to be Paul --- for an agenda.

However, since Church Doctrines are based on them---the argument for Pauline Christianity still stands.......

"Much of the material in the “genuine” Pauline epistles, reflects belief in a mystical godman (whom Paul calls “the Christ"). Also significant is the fact that Paul, formerly Saul, was a native of Tarsus, in his day still the chief seat of Mithras, and a Stoic refuge. The influences in his writing are obvious, if one simply knows to look for them. "--Early Christian History ---- www.earlychristianhistory.info