Christianity Debunked!

[Roasted Cashew]

OK, I'm talking about the current Pauline Christianity and not the original Christianity practiced by the true followers of Jesus Christ(pbuh). Muslims, ever wonder where all that so-called "inspired by the holy spirit" stuff in the Bible came from? I mean, how was the Injeel(the Gospel) corrupted and what "inspired" it? I think this documentary gives an awesome explanation.

Zeitgeist - The Movie - 2 of 13 (Part 1 of 3 on Religion)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE

Zeitgeist - The Movie - 3 of 13 (Part 2 of 3 on Religion)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmzailhVl-U&NR=1

Zeitgeist - The Movie - 4 of 13 (Part 3 of 3 on Religion)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6UdQ...eature=related


Before you come back smiting me, I would like to point out the irony myself. Indeed, this is an atheistic approach towards religion and it's original purpose was to discredit religion BUT/HOWEVER what it actually indirectly did was debunk the Pauline Christianity as we know it today. I know that the author seems to question miracles, and existence of Jesus and many other things which would test Muslims as well. Yet, I believe those things have been discussed in earlier threads. and if not, let us discuss them in other threads. The main purpose of this thread was to shed some light on where did the following things creeped into the original Injeel(the Gospel) and became the Bible as we know it today and debate on them.

#Jesus dead for 3 days
#Jesus Resurrected
#Star in the east
#12 disciples
#Jesus being the Son of God

Too bad the authors didn't know the Muslim version of Jesus Christ(pbuh).

[Bassam Zawadi]

See my debate against David Wood on Christianity over here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/multimedia

[InfinityRamAir]

I think it's pretty clear that christianity evolved from bits and pieces of many pagan ideas that long pre-dated it. There were many gods and goddesses that 1) were crucified 2) were resurrected 3 days later, etc. Also, the christian Jesus supposedly "died" in 33 AD, but no gospel was written until at least 40 years later. That fact alone, in my opinion, completely debunks christianity, as it's simply implausible.

The problem is that the vast majority of christians has never even read the bible, much less has researched the history of this religion. I've pointed to these and many other facts to various christians and the reply was unanimous - they denied it all, a "la-la-la I can't hear you" mentality. It just amazes me that they could be so close-minded and in such complete denial.

Peace,

Dale

[Grace Seeker]

OK, I'm talking about the current Pauline Christianity and not the original Christianity practiced by the true followers of Jesus Christ(pbuh).

Do you really think that John's statement near the end of his Gospel

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

(John 20:30-31)

represents "Pauline Chrisianity" rather than the understanding of John?

Praise 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, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.

(1 Peter 1:3-5)

These are not Paul's words, but Peter, one of Jesus' closest disciples.

Notice it is not Paul, but James who talks about how God's Spirit dwells within us (something that angels cannot do, but only God himself can):

Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: "He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us"?

(James 4:5)

We don't even know who wrote Hebrews, though it wasn't Paul, and some of the strongest and most influential ideas regarding Jesus' are presented in it:

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

(Hebrews 1:3)

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For 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 for the sins of the people.

(Hebrews 2:14-17)

And then there is this which represents the practice of the early Christians even before any of Paul's letters were ever written:

[Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism]
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.

[Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion]
We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God, the Son of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

(the Didache)

And here is part of a letter attributed to Paul's contemporary Barnabas, who it is recorded in Acts opposed Paul at times:

Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh to this end, that He might sum up the complete tale of their sins against those who persecuted and slew His prophets.

To this end therefore He endured. For God saith of the wounds of His flesh that they came from them; When they shall smite their own shepherd, then shall the sheep of the flock be lost.

But He Himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree. For he that prophesied said concerning Him, Spare My soul form the sword; and, Pierce My flesh with nails, for the congregations of evil-doers have risen up against Me.

And again He saith; Behold I have given My back to stripes, and My cheeks to smitings, and My face did I set as a hard rock.

(Epistle of Barnabas 5:11-14)

Note I am not saying that you believe or even that you should believe that any of the above statements regarding Christ or the Holy Spirit are true. If you accept the Qur'an, you cannot believe these statements are true. But I hope that by reading them you will note that the Christianity that is in existence today is NOT "Pauline Christianity", but a theology woven together with insights from a whole host different writers. Yes, it most certainly includes Paul, but also others -- many of whom spent time with Jesus when he was here in the flesh.

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

[The Khan]

Zeitgeist part I has many errors. A better comparision of Christianity to pagan religions would be the book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola.

The moon God of Arabia was Hubal. There were certain Goddesses who represented the phases of the moon, such as Mannat, Uzza, etc.

The deity of Byzantium, later Constantinople, was represented by a crescent. Later, Constantine added a star which depicted the Virgin Mary. The Turkish conquerers of Constantinople added this symbol as a sign of good luck.

The Arabic word for God is il-lah. Allah means "the one". Christians Arabs also use il-lah and Allah for God.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

I believe that if we are to read other peoples scriptures we should search for a greatest good………

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith tolerance and understanding.

Eric

[barney]

I think it's pretty clear that christianity evolved from bits and pieces of many pagan ideas that long pre-dated it. There were many gods and goddesses that 1) were crucified 2) were resurrected 3 days later, etc. Also, the christian Jesus supposedly "died" in 33 AD, but no gospel was written until at least 40 years later. That fact alone, in my opinion, completely debunks christianity, as it's simply implausible.

The problem is that the vast majority of christians has never even read the bible, much less has researched the history of this religion. I've pointed to these and many other facts to various christians and the reply was unanimous - they denied it all, a "la-la-la I can't hear you" mentality. It just amazes me that they could be so close-minded and in such complete denial.

Peace,

Dale

Hi and welcome Ramair. Yup, we discuss the miracles of jesus and others every week.

Christianity destroyed itself a couple of years ago when it admitted and apologised to Darwin for mocking him, when all they actually did as make themselves look utter spanners.

With creationism out of the window, and evolution as factual now as it was 100 years ago, we can see we are decended from other mammals, not popped into the world 6000 years ago fully upright or 90 feet tall or whatever, and religion is debunked. Christianity however made the mistake of accepting this, hence making it useless.

[ShalomAll]

Hi and welcome Ramair. Yup, we discuss the miracles of jesus and others every week.

Christianity destroyed itself a couple of years ago when it admitted and apologised to Darwin for mocking him, when all they actually did as make themselves look utter spanners.

With creationism out of the window, and evolution as factual now as it was 100 years ago, we can see we are decended from other mammals, not popped into the world 6000 years ago fully upright or 90 feet tall or whatever, and religion is debunked. Christianity however made the mistake of accepting this, hence making it useless.

Hey 6000 years may not be true just like the Quran the original Hebrew of the bible the word "Day" represented an age.

[Woodrow]

OFF TOPIC posts removed. Please return to the topic on hand in the original post and stay on topic

[barney]

Hey 6000 years may not be true just like the Quran the original Hebrew of the bible the word "Day" represented an age.

Actually in the Bible the word is "Day", in the Koran it is "Day/Period of time unspecified" The word used meant both.

The "Day" bit only became a problem when the age of the earth was found out. Only then did the theists scramble to change the context whilst vehmently denying it, even to this day.

[ShalomAll]

Actually in the Bible the word is "Day", in the Koran it is "Day/Period of time unspecified" The word used meant both.

The "Day" bit only became a problem when the age of the earth was found out. Only then did the theists scramble to change the context whilst vehmently denying it, even to this day.

Same with the Hebrew scripture

[Woodrow]

In reading Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic I find that it is very obvious that all three of the semitic languages are dialects of the same language.

The word for Day or period of time is spelled ya-wa-meem In all 3 it is pronounced youm in Hebrew, and yawm in Arabic. In Aramaic I find both pronunciations being used. I also find that in the 3 languages the word is used to mean both a specific day or an undefined period of time. The meaning can only be understood fully if the spoken pronunciation is heard as it can not be separated by the manner written, but it can by the oral rendition.

In the semitic languages the oral version is more exact then the written, which is one reason the 3 stress the importance of memorizing the oral.

[barney]

Perhaps its more important to learn how these phrases are taught nowadays. Or even in the past.
In the past the Brit Kids were taught six days.

I certainly will confirm that the standard halfassed christian lipservice upbringing that 90% of Brit kids attend, mumble six days in their brainwashing lessons. Hey, kids dont think too much. And its not really a worry if they get it wrong, they can just copy stuff down they are told and save the independent thinking for the "leaders"

Anyone offer what the other schools teach in practice? Past and Present?

[Grace Seeker]

Aside from the fact that the Bible itself teaches that one day with God is like a thousand years, thus reminding one that much of the scriptures are to understood as figurative speach and not a literal scientific explanation nor an historical document. Exactly how does accepting current theories about the evolution of the human species debunk Christianity which has its central focus a person who is fully a modern human being however the species came into being?

[barney]

In that case Grace, God created the universe in 6000 years.
Which again is , even resorting to scriptural loopholes, simply a lot of old tosh.

The geneology of Adam, the first man /first woman, woman from ribs/garden of eden/ talking snake/ chronology of the creation with all its non-photo synthisising plants/ the huge sheet of water above the surface of the earth,....


It debunks it in probably over a hundred ways.(At least in the form that you can rely on the bible as a book to take anything as other than a wild and mostly horrible metaphor).

[SixTen]

Zeitgeist, both 1 and 2 (having watched them), were a total waste of time.

It debunks nothing. Referencing poor, fabrication in the masses. Don't spread this around really, people are way too easily brainwashed.

Also, if you actually paid careful attention - it tries to debunk religion as a whole - including making Moses and others false prophets, just tales (thats against Islam too). Zeitgeist producers are against all religions.

Zeitgeist 2 is funnier though, its as if it is promoting paganism.

In the end, it doesn't take a genius to work out - it is a U.S political campaign, albeit a bad one.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you barney;

With creationism out of the window, and evolution as factual now as it was 100 years ago, we can see we are decended from other mammals,

Can evolution work without God?

Take care,

Eric

[ATR]

In that case Grace, God created the universe in 6000 years.
Which again is , even resorting to scriptural loopholes, simply a lot of old tosh.

The geneology of Adam, the first man /first woman, woman from ribs/garden of eden/ talking snake/ chronology of the creation with all its non-photo synthisising plants/ the huge sheet of water above the surface of the earth,....


It debunks it in probably over a hundred ways.(At least in the form that you can rely on the bible as a book to take anything as other than a wild and mostly horrible metaphor).

Not all Christians, in fact a great deal, believe that the Earth is so young. This is called "Young Earth Creationism" and it is mostly found in the most extreme denominations. Even the calculations leading to this number or not exact.

[ATR]

Too bad the authors didn't know the Muslim version of Jesus Christ(pbuh).

Okay here is a question I have, on the topic of early Christianity, and mind you I have studied a great deal about it. Not enough for my liking but more than most.

I should point out that the Gospels are not the only source of information that historians have that Jesus was, as far as they knew crucified. Josephus, a Jewish historian, mentions Jesus being crucified. And then there are the letters of Paul, which are actually older than the Gospels. Paul started writing his letters only a few years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. There are other matters to take into account but I shall not go into it.

What I would like to know is, who decieved mankind? Even historians agree that Jesus was crucified. Why do the switch with Judas? Islam teaches that someone was made to look like Jesus and was crucifed in his place? Why?

Jesus being crucified was being preached long before the gospels were written. Not just Paul spent years on the road preaching on Jesus, being beaten and thrown out of towns, being thrown in prison and eventually killed. The disciples were also preaching this.

So, one cannot help wondering, why the deception then? Did Jesus tell his disciples it would not be him on the cross?

The gospels were written, primarily because of the crucifixion. They have been called Passion narratives with long introductions. [Passion in this case means suffering] You would not have the gospels [the Injil] without the crucifxion. You cannot say they were just changed. It would be like taking Hogwarts out of a Harry Potter novel. This was what they were about.

On top of that the crucifixion was not a good thing to them! To preach Jesus as a crucified messiah was insane back then. Most people expected the Messiah to come in and crush the foes of Isreal. So to preach he was the crucified messiah meant something had to have happened to make them believe this.

On top of that why did God wait 600 years to reveal the truth? Why did he allow people to create an entire religion surrounding something that was false? What do people expect, for Christians to, on learning of Prophet Muhammad suddenly drop everything, "Everyone, take down the crosses! There has been a mistake! New revelation! Jesus never was on the cross?"

And why the deception in the first place? Why trick people? Even outsider, nonChristian historians from that day write that Jesus was crucified. They have nothing to gain from this. No reason to lie.

[The Khan]

On top of that why did God wait 600 years to reveal the truth? Why did he allow people to create an entire religion surrounding something that was false? What do people expect, for Christians to, on learning of Prophet Muhammad suddenly drop everything, "Everyone, take down the crosses! There has been a mistake! New revelation! Jesus never was on the cross?"

There were different alleged prophets prior to Muhammed (S). The concept that there were no prophets between Jesus (AHS) and Muhammed (S) is based on a hadith in Sahih Bukhari. As far as I know, there were many alleged prophets such as Mani.

Did early Christians have iconography of their own? What I noticed is that most Christian iconography is borrowed from polytheistic traditions mainly in Italy, Greece, and Egypt, not to mention Mesopotamia and Assyria.

I have no doubt that Jesus (AHS) was lifted into heaven and that a look-alike was crucified. Frankly, I think that Jesus (AHS) himself didn't know that he wasn't going to be crucified. Life was a test for him as well, being a prophet. Frankly, I see the Christian tradition of cross veneration being borrowed from the Egyptian Ankh. The concept of the cross itself has been popular throughout the polytheistic world, from the Swastika of Vedic tradition, the Babylonian cross, the Mesomerican cross, the "4 dots" of the Dards, for example. All clearly represent the "death of the sun" during the winter solstice.

Then there's the other symbol of Christianity, the fish. Another Zoroastrian-mesopotamian concept. The Zoroastrians draw the Swastika, Fish, Ses, etc in front of their doorsteps using chalk like how the Hindus do so. There are way too many similarities with polytheistic traditions, when Christianity is compared to them. Way too many.

Peace.

[ATR]

I have no doubt that Jesus (AHS) was lifted into heaven and that a look-alike was crucified. Frankly, I think that Jesus (AHS) himself didn't know that he wasn't going to be crucified. Life was a test for him as well, being a prophet. Frankly, I see the Christian tradition of cross veneration being borrowed from the Egyptian Ankh. The concept of the cross itself has been popular throughout the polytheistic world, from the Swastika of Vedic tradition, the Babylonian cross, the Mesomerican cross, the "4 dots" of the Dards, for example. All clearly represent the "death of the sun" during the winter solstice.

Then there's the other symbol of Christianity, the fish. Another Zoroastrian-mesopotamian concept. The Zoroastrians draw the Swastika, Fish, Ses, etc in front of their doorsteps using chalk like how the Hindus do so. There are way too many similarities with polytheistic traditions, when Christianity is compared to them. Way too many.

Peace.

So the symbol may have previous uses or been adopted from previous religions and or cultures. In fact it probably was and better for it. The fish that is. The fish, or Ichthys, was used as a secret symbol between early Christians. One would draw the first half, and if the other was a Christian they would finish it. Better to have a symbol that would not stand out as Christians were persecutred against.

As for the cross, i do not see it as coming from the ancient Egyptians. To them Jesus died on the cross, it is a sign of their salvation. They did not take the idea of Jesus dying for their salvation from ancient Egypt. People look at the idea of Jesus being killed on the cross as being so much later invented, that people got together and created a new faith or adapted old faiths but don't see how totally insane or ridiculious the idea of a crucified messiah was to them. On top of that we know Jesus appeared to be crucified.

But that isn't key to what I am asking. If Jesus did not know then that is even worse for then it means God decieved us. God could have chosen many other ways to save Jesus. Why save him via deception? And why then later condemn the people who follow this, truly believe this to Hell?

The only reason we accept that Jesus was not on the cross was because the Quran says it so, a form of blind faith. Historically Jesus died on the cross. All the evidence, other than the Quran, even the outside of Christianity evidence also say Jesus died on a cross.

[barney]

Historically Jesus died on the cross. All the evidence, other than the Quran, even the outside of Christianity evidence also say Jesus died on a cross.

Your in possession of some newly discovered contempory manuscripts from 34 AD?
W00T! Congratulations, You are an instant multi-billionaire!
I'm really chuffed for you.

Or are you talking about Josephus?

[The Khan]

Ok, ATR, forget the cross. Even Keltoi has agreed with me that all of Christian iconography is borrowed from polytheistic traditions.

Now, as far as the Qur'an has revealed, the Injil was the book revealed to Jesus (AHS). Now, the gospel has allegedly been written by the disciples of Jesus (AHS). It makes me wonder where the Injil disappeared off to.

Believe me, I found Christianity attractive at one point, when I was an atheist. A quick study revealed too many pagan attributes. Trinity (Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and many polytheistic traditions), Christmas (Saturnalia, birthday of Sol Invictus), iconography, holy ash (Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and many if not most polytheistic traditions), blood for sin (many many polytheistic traditions), choirs (many polytheistic traditions + judaism), sunday worship (Mithraic mysteries), halos (common everywhere, in all non-Islamic traditions save some controversial depictions of Ali), depiction of angels with wings and devils with horns (polytheism), saint veneration (excuse for continuing idolatry, very similar to Hindu murti veneration), priesthood (same heirachy as the Mithraic mysteries), nuns (vestal virgins), etc. 90% of Christian traditions is based on polytheistic traditions.

I mean, another example would be the Catholic practice of not eating meat on Fridays which was abandoned after the second Vatican council. Reminds me too much of the Hindu tradition of not eating meat on Tuesdays. Even the armed forces here don't serve meat on Tuesdays, regardless of how important protein is for soldiers.

I would suggest you read a book called Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. It gives a detailed explanation of every pagan attribute with historical proof and references.

[rpwelton]

On top of that why did God wait 600 years to reveal the truth? Why did he allow people to create an entire religion surrounding something that was false? What do people expect, for Christians to, on learning of Prophet Muhammad suddenly drop everything, "Everyone, take down the crosses! There has been a mistake! New revelation! Jesus never was on the cross?"

.......

And why the deception in the first place? Why trick people? Even outsider, nonChristian historians from that day write that Jesus was crucified. They have nothing to gain from this. No reason to lie.

First, the issue of the deception. As far as I know (and I'm not scholar mind you), Unitarians as well as other "sects" of Christianity that don't follow the trinity, generally believe that Jesus (as) was crucified. They still believe he was just a prophet, but they do say that he was killed on the cross.

It does not shake the foundations of Islam to say that every historical document points to the crucifixion of Jesus (as), because to paraphrase what was pointed out earlier, it was made to appear as though he had been crucified. In fact, it actually make sense, because nobody else but Allah SWT would know that it was not in fact Jesus (as) on the cross, but indeed someone else.

Why he was saved in that manner, we don't know; that knowledge rests with Allah SWT alone. Was it deceptive? No. Just because he died on the cross does not mean people instantly realized he was God (actually kind of ridiculous if you think about it that way). Many of the early Christians believe he died on the cross and believed he was just a man, not God incarnate. Again, where the sects differ is in the idea of resurrection.

As far as why Allah SWT waited 600 years to bring Muhammad (SAW), we really don't know. BUT, just like any other test that humanity has been given in life, this stretch of time was a test for the Christians. Let's not forget that the beliefs of the early Christians existed right alongside the beliefs of those who believed in the trinity, so to say that nobody during those 600 years knew of anything but the trinity would be a lie. In fact, because there was such an open opposition from the Church to all "competing" ideologies about Jesus (as), one could hypothesize that these alternate ideas amongst Christians could have been much stronger back then then they are now.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ATR, welcome to the forum.

and mind you I have studied a great deal about it.

If you spend a life time studying you will not find that final proof, but you may become an academic.

In order to have faith in God, you need to accept and trust he exists fully and totally, without that final proof, and then you need to do something.

In the spirit of praying for a greater faith in God.

Eric

[ATR]

First, the issue of the deception. As far as I know (and I'm not scholar mind you), Unitarians as well as other "sects" of Christianity that don't follow the trinity, generally believe that Jesus (as) was crucified. They still believe he was just a prophet, but they do say that he was killed on the cross.

It does not shake the foundations of Islam to say that every historical document points to the crucifixion of Jesus (as), because to paraphrase what was pointed out earlier, it was made to appear as though he had been crucified. In fact, it actually make sense, because nobody else but Allah SWT would know that it was not in fact Jesus (as) on the cross, but indeed someone else.

Why he was saved in that manner, we don't know; that knowledge rests with Allah SWT alone. Was it deceptive? No. Just because he died on the cross does not mean people instantly realized he was God (actually kind of ridiculous if you think about it that way). Many of the early Christians believe he died on the cross and believed he was just a man, not God incarnate. Again, where the sects differ is in the idea of resurrection.

As far as why Allah SWT waited 600 years to bring Muhammad (SAW), we really don't know. BUT, just like any other test that humanity has been given in life, this stretch of time was a test for the Christians. Let's not forget that the beliefs of the early Christians existed right alongside the beliefs of those who believed in the trinity, so to say that nobody during those 600 years knew of anything but the trinity would be a lie. In fact, because there was such an open opposition from the Church to all "competing" ideologies about Jesus (as), one could hypothesize that these alternate ideas amongst Christians could have been much stronger back then then they are now.

But you didn't answer my question. In fact you proved my point!

First you say even the Unitarians, though they do not believe in the Trinity believe Jesus was crucified. Which supports my point that everyone believe he was crucified, that you don't even have to be fully Christian.

Second you said exactly what I said. It appeared that Jesus died on the cross and only God knew the truth. That is my entire point. It was a deception. A trick. God lied to us. No, I am not talking about Jesus being God. As you said many who believed him completely man also believed he died on the cross. My entire question is, why did God make it appear like he died on the cross? Why the deception?

As to it shaking the foundation of Islam. We are supposed to believe the entire Quran is true. This is in the Quran. Even to not believe one thing in the Quran is one doubt too many.

If this is a modern and past test to Christians, how? Why? Why would God trick us to test our faith? That would be like what some of the "Young Earth Creationists" believe, that God put signs on Earth, made the planet to appear older just to test our faith. We are supposed to believe in a God who would deceive us to test our faith? If we are to believe this once, what else is there?

Let me repeat, I am not a Christian. But this has been a matter that has been troubling me a lot. The key matter of Christianity is the crucifixion of Jesus, that is primarily from what it started it from, and yet we expect people to drop this because another prophet came along 600 years later telling people they have to believe otherwise. The equivalent would be, an analogy!, is if a later revelation came down saying it was not the Angel Gibreal that came to the prophet but Satan. Like with the crucifixion, in this case, the very foundation of Islam would be being attacked.

[ATR]

Greetings and peace be with you ATR, welcome to the forum.

If you spend a life time studying you will not find that final proof, but you may become an academic.

In order to have faith in God, you need to accept and trust he exists fully and totally, without that final proof, and then you need to do something.

In the spirit of praying for a greater faith in God.

Eric

You are Christian?

Trust me. I know! I've had a priest and many others tell me I should consider studying comparative religion and get my degree in divinity and I have actually had people tell me, even insist, that I should consider becoming a priest.

Yes, I agree that God exists. I know God exists. For a time I fought with doubt over that, even though I was raised a Muslim. What I am trying to find now is what "God" I should believe in.

I mentioned in my introduction, that I was raised Muslim but am considering the Episcopal church. I am here because I have some final questions about Islam, stuff I want to know, is my knowledge of Islam wrong? Reasons why I think Anglicanism, to me, is better than Islam, but I could be wrong. This isn't my only question.

I know one cannot get all the proof that makes it beyond a doubt that something is right or wrong but theology is taking what we know of God and making interpretations. Do I, for example, want to believe in a God that would trick people to test their faith? How different is that from what I pointed out about "Young Earth Creationism" I do not think God would deceive us, at least I hope not!

[doorster]

You are Christian?

so mocks the faker!

Eric H
LI Oldskool

Status: Offline
Posts: 1,115
Reputation: 8748
Rep Power: 33

Join Date: Apr 2005
Gender:

Way of Life: Christian

I am willing to give up a thousand like you in exchange for one like him

[rpwelton]

But you didn't answer my question. In fact you proved my point!

First you say even the Unitarians, though they do not believe in the Trinity believe Jesus was crucified. Which supports my point that everyone believe he was crucified, that you don't even have to be fully Christian.

Second you said exactly what I said. It appeared that Jesus died on the cross and only God knew the truth. That is my entire point. It was a deception. A trick. God lied to us. No, I am not talking about Jesus being God. As you said many who believed him completely man also believed he died on the cross. My entire question is, why did God make it appear like he died on the cross? Why the deception?

As to it shaking the foundation of Islam. We are supposed to believe the entire Quran is true. This is in the Quran. Even to not believe one thing in the Quran is one doubt too many.

If this is a modern and past test to Christians, how? Why? Why would God trick us to test our faith? That would be like what some of the "Young Earth Creationists" believe, that God put signs on Earth, made the planet to appear older just to test our faith. We are supposed to believe in a God who would deceive us to test our faith? If we are to believe this once, what else is there?

Let me repeat, I am not a Christian. But this has been a matter that has been troubling me a lot. The key matter of Christianity is the crucifixion of Jesus, that is primarily from what it started it from, and yet we expect people to drop this because another prophet came along 600 years later telling people they have to believe otherwise. The equivalent would be, an analogy!, is if a later revelation came down saying it was not the Angel Gibreal that came to the prophet but Satan. Like with the crucifixion, in this case, the very foundation of Islam would be being attacked.

Essentially your question as to why Allah SWT chose to make people think Jesus (as) was crucified is unknown to us. We put our trust in Allah SWT and we know it is for the best. All we know is that Christians are still divided in beliefs even though they both believed in the crucifixion at the time. So their belief in Jesus as divine rests in something other than the crucifixion; and that is the resurrection.

We also don't know the nature as to how Jesus (as) was saved. The Qur'an is not clear as to exactly how it happened, just that it did. This is consistent with many other instances where the Qur'an gives us just the amount of knowledge we need, and nothing more. That is the perfection of the Word of Allah SWT.

I also would like to point out that history is not unanimous that Jesus (as) died on the cross. In fact, there are several competing theories from historians and some Christian scholars that say he lived and traveled to India, or to France, or what have you. So you see, the more you study this issue, the more confusing it can become because we simply don't know the answer. That knowledge rests with Allah SWT alone.

You are obviously questioning your belief in Islam, and seeing as how you are leaning towards the Episcopalian Church, you tend to be more inclined towards the idea that Jesus is God. And you support this by saying that God "deceived" us in the Qur'an, therefore you feel the Qur'an is invalid. Well, ultimately that's something you have to figure out for yourself. Do you have enough trust in Allah SWT that He has valid reasons for doing what He does?

Getting into the nitty gritty of things is where a lot of people can lose faith, because we just don't know. You can turn around and find yourself in the same position as a Christian (as I did many years ago). Why does God need to be in the form of a trinity? Why did Jesus have to die for our sins? Many Christians simply chalk it up to faith, so they too have no real answers for many things that we might question them on as Muslims.

I'm not sure if any other members can shed some light on this area, but if they can then great. But otherwise, surely you have other issues with Islam aside from the crucifixion. You seem to be torn between two faiths and are unsure where to go. Let us know what else it is about Islam that you are unsure about.

[aamirsaab]

...
But that isn't key to what I am asking. If Jesus did not know then that is even worse for then it means God decieved us. God could have chosen many other ways to save Jesus. Why save him via deception? And why then later condemn the people who follow this, truly believe this to Hell?

Well, seeing as the Prophet Isa was about to be CRUCIFIED, I think God's act of ''deception'' was an act of mercy! I also think the condemnation is warranted to those who worship the creation and not the Creator.

The only reason we accept that Jesus was not on the cross was because the Quran says it so, a form of blind faith. Historically Jesus died on the cross. All the evidence, other than the Quran, even the outside of Christianity evidence also say Jesus died on a cross.

1) A source backing your statement would be helpful
2) From my knowledge, history showed that someone was crucified. Whether or not it was Jesus is yet to be 100% proven. If you have any evidence of any kind, I would personally love to see and read it so I can make my own mind up :)

[ATR]

so mocks the faker!

Eric H
LI Oldskool

Status: Offline
Posts: 1,115
Reputation: 8748
Rep Power: 33

Join Date: Apr 2005
Gender:

Way of Life: Christian


I am willing to give up a thousand like you in exchange for one like him

Faker? Huh? What are you talking about? I am NOT Christian. I was raised Muslim. At the moment I consider myself agnostic. I am considering Christianity but have not made the switch?

What do you want, a signed certificate from a priest I am not Christian?

[ATR]

Well, seeing as the Prophet Isa was about to be CRUCIFIED, I think God's act of ''deception'' was an act of mercy! I also think the condemnation is warranted to those who worship the creation and not the Creator.


1) A source backing your statement would be helpful
2) From my knowledge, history showed that someone was crucified. Whether or not it was Jesus is yet to be 100% proven. If you have any evidence of any kind, I would personally love to see and read it so I can make my own mind up :)

I will bring my sources up tonight, in a few hours. I have work at the moment.

[barney]

[QUOTE=rpwelton;1037308]It does not shake the foundations of Islam to say that every historical document points to the crucifixion of Jesus (as), because to paraphrase what was pointed out earlier, it was made to appear as though he had been crucified. QUOTE]


If we are to imagine that Jesus actually existed and was a fairly popular prophet as seems likely, then this local celebrity would have been identifiable on his stake/cross.

Bizzarely, taking into account this celebrity, the ex-bibilic sources simply dont acknowlage him at all. It's like Hannah Montana only being talked about in one chatroom in 2070AD rather than her freakish grinning mug being plastered over every surface on earth.

[rpwelton]

If we are to imagine that Jesus actually existed and was a fairly popular prophet as seems likely, then this local celebrity would have been identifiable on his stake/cross.

What many scholars deduce from the Qur'an is that whoever was put up on that cross was made to look like Jesus (as). So you wouldn't be able to tell that it wasn't really Jesus (as). I'm not going to get into all the detailed theories about how it happened because it's basically all speculation. It doesn't aide our faith at all.

In regards to your comment on the presence of Jesus (as) in historical records, I can't say much on that because I'm not familiar with what has been written in history about him outside of the Bible and the Qur'an.

[ATR]

Well, seeing as the Prophet Isa was about to be CRUCIFIED, I think God's act of ''deception'' was an act of mercy! I also think the condemnation is warranted to those who worship the creation and not the Creator.


1) A source backing your statement would be helpful
2) From my knowledge, history showed that someone was crucified. Whether or not it was Jesus is yet to be 100% proven. If you have any evidence of any kind, I would personally love to see and read it so I can make my own mind up :)

Firstly we have the four Gospels, that are at present in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These were written within*†he first century. With Mark, the earliest, as early as 60-65 AD. Matthew and Luke were based on Mark and were written later.

Now people toss out casually that the Injil was changed. [The Injil or Gospels, which are the mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] however you cannot simply add the crucifixion of Jesus, you cannot simply make minor changes to these Gospels. Now I can understand the idea of Jesus as the Son of God but not the cross. Each Gospel was written with the cross as the primary focus. I have read Matthew and Mark and I can see, there was no reason for them to be written at all if Jesus did not end up on the cross.

Next comes the Epistles of Paul. This is about half of the Bible. Archeologist do know some parts that were changed. They can tell this by looking at the writing style. But nothing about the cross was changed. Primarily the changed parts deal with the role of women in the church, the Pastoral Epistles, called 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus. These were written between 50-60 AD, about 10-15 or so years after Jesus was crucified.

Let me also make a note about Paul. Paul spent years of his life preaching. He was on the road. Numerous times he was beaten, thrown out of towns and eventually he was killed for preaching, as he put it in 1 Corinthians, "We preach Christ crucified" Here is a man who was actually well off, a good position in the Jewish temple who chose to preach Jesus dying on the cross, not decades later but only a few years.

Then there is Josephus, the Jewish historian, who lived between AD. 37-100 and who wrote in his works of Jesus, saying that some believed him to be the Christ, or Messiah, and that he was condemned to the cross by Pilate.

Next comes, less a document fact, but the expectations of the Jews on who the Messiah, or Christ, would be. There are things that can be quoted supporting this but I cannot recall any at the moment. We do know, however, that those Jews of that time who were expecting a Messiah to come, were expecting someone great. Someone who would conquer the enemies of Israel and raise them to great power. A crucified Messiah makes no sense to them. In fact it is said in the Old Testament, that cursed is he who hangs on a tree [is crucified] A cursed Messiah? For them to preach that a crucified Messiah makes no sense. It defies all logic of that time. In fact it was almost suicidal. No Jew would want a crucified Messiah! Most would laugh at the idea. It is the equivalent of someone stepping forward now and preaching David Koresh was the Messiah! They had no reason to preach Jesus crucified.

The only evidence we have that Jesus was not crucified is the Quran, written 600 years later, hundreds of miles away. I don't think I blame the Christians of that time or even this time for not believing us.

['Abd-al Latif]

Firstly we have the four Gospels, that are at present in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These were written within*†he first century. With Mark, the earliest, as early as 60-65 AD. Matthew and Luke were based on Mark and were written later.

The only evidence we have that Jesus was not crucified is the Quran, written 600 years later, hundreds of miles away. I don't think I blame the Christians of that time or even this time for not believing us.

The Qur'an was not 'written'. It was revealed because if there is any miracle that Prophet Muhammad came with, it is the Qur'an.

For example, how can a man who lived in a desert all of his life, who could neither read nor write, explain how a sperm drop clings onto a womb of a woman in order to create a child? This is a fact has been confirmed in the last 100 years or so.

This could only have been known to the One who created woman and knew matters of the unseen. You call Him god, we call Him Allah.

[Grace Seeker]

In that case Grace, God created the universe in 6000 years.
Which again is , even resorting to scriptural loopholes, simply a lot of old tosh.

Well it goes on to say and a thousand years are like one day. In other words scripture itself is telling you that many of the allussions to time are themselves metaphorical, and not to be taken as articles of eithe science or for arithmetic calcuation. It's only a loophole if you insist on it meaning something that it actually isn't even trying to say. I swear you are more literal than I am, and you don't even except the Bible as true.

[ATR]

The Qur'an was not 'written'. It was revealed because if there is any miracle that Prophet Muhammad came with, it is the Qur'an.

For example, how can a man who lived in a desert all of his life, who could neither read nor write, explain how a sperm drop clings onto a womb of a woman in order to create a child? This is a fact has been confirmed in the last 100 years or so.

This could only have been known to the One who created woman and knew matters of the unseen. You call Him god, we call Him Allah.

That isn't what I am asking! Written, recorded. Put on paper.

[Grace Seeker]

Ok, ATR, forget the cross. Even Keltoi has agreed with me that all of Christian iconography is borrowed from polytheistic traditions.

I would be curious as to what post that was in, for I never read it, and it doesn't sound like the Keltoi I know, unless you are mis-reading or mis-interpreting something else that he said.

What Christianity owes to polytheistic religions is some adaptation of a few pagan festivals that were re-interpreted to bring a Christian spin to something that already existed in the culture. But to say that Christianity has its roots in pagan culture for that is about as true as saying that since the Arabs were pagans before Muhammad, and since their language was Arabic, that the Qur'an is pagan because it was written in a pagan language. I don't think you would accept that syllogism, and you shouldn't, but you are applying that very same way of thinking to Christianity. Whether speaking of Christianty or Islam, the logic is faulty that because they borrowed things from those who were pagans, or use some of the same images that pagans use that such similarities proves either to be pagan. It just doesn't follow.

[rpwelton]

Firstly we have the four Gospels, that are at present in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These were written within*†he first century. With Mark, the earliest, as early as 60-65 AD. Matthew and Luke were based on Mark and were written later.

Now people toss out casually that the Injil was changed. [The Injil or Gospels, which are the mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] however you cannot simply add the crucifixion of Jesus, you cannot simply make minor changes to these Gospels. Now I can understand the idea of Jesus as the Son of God but not the cross. Each Gospel was written with the cross as the primary focus. I have read Matthew and Mark and I can see, there was no reason for them to be written at all if Jesus did not end up on the cross.

Next comes the Epistles of Paul. This is about half of the Bible. Archeologist do know some parts that were changed. They can tell this by looking at the writing style. But nothing about the cross was changed. Primarily the changed parts deal with the role of women in the church, the Pastoral Epistles, called 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus. These were written between 50-60 AD, about 10-15 or so years after Jesus was crucified.

Let me also make a note about Paul. Paul spent years of his life preaching. He was on the road. Numerous times he was beaten, thrown out of towns and eventually he was killed for preaching, as he put it in 1 Corinthians, "We preach Christ crucified" Here is a man who was actually well off, a good position in the Jewish temple who chose to preach Jesus dying on the cross, not decades later but only a few years.

Then there is Josephus, the Jewish historian, who lived between AD. 37-100 and who wrote in his works of Jesus, saying that some believed him to be the Christ, or Messiah, and that he was condemned to the cross by Pilate.

Next comes, less a document fact, but the expectations of the Jews on who the Messiah, or Christ, would be. There are things that can be quoted supporting this but I cannot recall any at the moment. We do know, however, that those Jews of that time who were expecting a Messiah to come, were expecting someone great. Someone who would conquer the enemies of Israel and raise them to great power. A crucified Messiah makes no sense to them. In fact it is said in the Old Testament, that cursed is he who hangs on a tree [is crucified] A cursed Messiah? For them to preach that a crucified Messiah makes no sense. It defies all logic of that time. In fact it was almost suicidal. No Jew would want a crucified Messiah! Most would laugh at the idea. It is the equivalent of someone stepping forward now and preaching David Koresh was the Messiah! They had no reason to preach Jesus crucified.

The only evidence we have that Jesus was not crucified is the Quran, written 600 years later, hundreds of miles away. I don't think I blame the Christians of that time or even this time for not believing us.

First of all, the Injil is NOT the Gospels. The word injil is translated frequently as "The Gospel", but that is not the same Gospel of Matthew Mark Luke and John. There may be traces of what was originally revealed to Jesus (as) contained within the current Bible, but we don't know exactly what so we can't go picking and choosing. Therefore, as Muslims, we do not support the 4 Gospels of the New Testament as being the Injil, and therefore they are not the Word of Allah SWT.

As for Paul; we know that he had a vision on the road to Damascus. This vision was unlike any other "prophetic" revelation that came before. Unlike Moses (as) and his conversations with Allah SWT and Muhammad (SAW) and his revelations from Allah SWT through the angel Jibreel, Paul was preaching a whole new message. And this is what I consider to be the most important thing about Christianity.

Whereas all prophets in the past have come to confirm the message that others had brought in the past, Paul brings a whole new message. Whereas previous prophets said God is One and eternal, having no partners or equal, Paul says that God in fact became man and died for our sins. Paul says that it is not good deeds and repentance to Allah SWT that allows one to attain paradise, it is now belief in the idea that Jesus (as) died for our sins that paves the way for our salvation. Whereas previous messengers said we are all accountable for our own actions, Paul says we have all inherited the sins of Adam (as) and thus because we have this "original sin" within us from the beginning, we need a personal savior to take the sin away. Previous messengers came bringing dietary laws and other laws ordained by God. Paul says "nope, don't need those any more". Just belief in Jesus (as) and BAM! Salvation.

I don't mean to lead into mocking, but I'm just trying to bring about a point. And that point is, if you believe in all the prophets prior to Jesus (as) and what they teach, then you'll find yourself in a predicament as everything does a complete 180 degree turn as soon as Christianity comes about. It totally negates everything that came before it. Are we to suppose that God changed His mind? Are we to assume that suddenly we had been following the wrong path all these years?

Now THAT is what I call deceptive. Paul essentially pulled the rug out from under the believers at that point and basically rewrote the rules according to this vision. People claim that Muhammad (SAW) was insane and claimed to have false visions, but you see Muhammad (SAW) came to affirm all that came before him and to bring forth new laws and commandments. Paul just totally ignores everything that comes before him and preaches a totally new path to salvation, and that leads me to believe that he suffered from false visions.

[Sami234]

But you didn't answer my question. In fact you proved my point!

First you say even the Unitarians, though they do not believe in the Trinity believe Jesus was crucified. Which supports my point that everyone believe he was crucified, that you don't even have to be fully Christian.

Second you said exactly what I said. It appeared that Jesus died on the cross and only God knew the truth. That is my entire point. It was a deception. A trick. God lied to us. No, I am not talking about Jesus being God. As you said many who believed him completely man also believed he died on the cross. My entire question is, why did God make it appear like he died on the cross? Why the deception?

As to it shaking the foundation of Islam. We are supposed to believe the entire Quran is true. This is in the Quran. Even to not believe one thing in the Quran is one doubt too many.

If this is a modern and past test to Christians, how? Why? Why would God trick us to test our faith? That would be like what some of the "Young Earth Creationists" believe, that God put signs on Earth, made the planet to appear older just to test our faith. We are supposed to believe in a God who would deceive us to test our faith? If we are to believe this once, what else is there?

Let me repeat, I am not a Christian. But this has been a matter that has been troubling me a lot. The key matter of Christianity is the crucifixion of Jesus, that is primarily from what it started it from, and yet we expect people to drop this because another prophet came along 600 years later telling people they have to believe otherwise. The equivalent would be, an analogy!, is if a later revelation came down saying it was not the Angel Gibreal that came to the prophet but Satan. Like with the crucifixion, in this case, the very foundation of Islam would be being attacked.

I think you missed the point.

There is absolutely no problem to beleive that he was killed before the Qur-an came.

If a christian believed that he was killed on a cross like people were saying, that does not challenge the faith since they are only supposed to worship God.

You understand?

God told us he was killed not killed on a cross. If he had not told us, that would not challenge our faith.

To resume with my poor english :

There is no trick since christians were allowed to believe he was killed on a cross since it has nothing to do with basics of faith. They just believed what they heard.

[Sami234]

Firstly we have the four Gospels, that are at present in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These were written within*†he first century. With Mark, the earliest, as early as 60-65 AD. Matthew and Luke were based on Mark and were written later.

Now people toss out casually that the Injil was changed. [The Injil or Gospels, which are the mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John] however you cannot simply add the crucifixion of Jesus, you cannot simply make minor changes to these Gospels. Now I can understand the idea of Jesus as the Son of God but not the cross. Each Gospel was written with the cross as the primary focus. I have read Matthew and Mark and I can see, there was no reason for them to be written at all if Jesus did not end up on the cross.

According to the historians who wrote notes and commentary in the "La bible de Jérusalem" which is the most popular translation of the Bible in France, we don't really know who is the author of Matthew. John was probably rewritten 2 times and had several authors.

They said several things saying that he Gospels we read today was changed a lot.

The cross is a major theme of those books for a simple reason :

-Ppl thougth Jesus died on a cross (it does not matter if it's him or no)
-Some ppl began asking themselves "why that?"
-Some ppl had an answer : dead for our sins, other did not agree, etc.

And as you know, with time, theological debate had their influence on the "official" texts. Gnostics had theyr own Gospels. People believing he was not the son of God had diffrent passages in their books. Ultimately, trinitarian/redemption christiannity won the theological battle, and their gospels became became the gospels we read today.

Next comes the Epistles of Paul. This is about half of the Bible. Archeologist do know some parts that were changed. They can tell this by looking at the writing style. But nothing about the cross was changed. Primarily the changed parts deal with the role of women in the church, the Pastoral Epistles, called 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus. These were written between 50-60 AD, about 10-15 or so years after Jesus was crucified.

I am not convinced about the dates you give, but anyway, all it prove is that the pagan-like christiannity of today was already existing at the time.

Let me also make a note about Paul. Paul spent years of his life preaching. He was on the road. Numerous times he was beaten, thrown out of towns and eventually he was killed for preaching, as he put it in 1 Corinthians, "We preach Christ crucified" Here is a man who was actually well off, a good position in the Jewish temple who chose to preach Jesus dying on the cross, not decades later but only a few years.

Ok.
So?

Then there is Josephus, the Jewish historian, who lived between AD. 37-100 and who wrote in his works of Jesus, saying that some believed him to be the Christ, or Messiah, and that he was condemned to the cross by Pilate.

Ok.

Next comes, less a document fact, but the expectations of the Jews on who the Messiah, or Christ, would be. There are things that can be quoted supporting this but I cannot recall any at the moment. We do know, however, that those Jews of that time who were expecting a Messiah to come, were expecting someone great. Someone who would conquer the enemies of Israel and raise them to great power. A crucified Messiah makes no sense to them. In fact it is said in the Old Testament, that cursed is he who hangs on a tree [is crucified] A cursed Messiah? For them to preach that a crucified Messiah makes no sense. It defies all logic of that time. In fact it was almost suicidal. No Jew would want a crucified Messiah! Most would laugh at the idea. It is the equivalent of someone stepping forward now and preaching David Koresh was the Messiah! They had no reason to preach Jesus crucified.

The only evidence we have that Jesus was not crucified is the Quran, written 600 years later, hundreds of miles away. I don't think I blame the Christians of that time or even this time for not believing us.

There is no problem there.

Some people tryed to kill him. They thougth they killed him. The rumor was spread. Everyone was saying "He was killed" because some people claimed he was.

This is why Josephus wrote he was crucified. He is born after the event. Therefore, he is not a witness, he only repeated what he heard.

The information was credible. Some christians took the information and began some of them began believing he was dead for our sin etc.

You know that there were completely different christians in the first century? I am speaking about christians following most of Moses law. Nothing to do with Paul teachings.

[The Khan]

I would be curious as to what post that was in, for I never read it, and it doesn't sound like the Keltoi I know, unless you are mis-reading or mis-interpreting something else that he said.

What Christianity owes to polytheistic religions is some adaptation of a few pagan festivals that were re-interpreted to bring a Christian spin to something that already existed in the culture. But to say that Christianity has its roots in pagan culture for that is about as true as saying that since the Arabs were pagans before Muhammad, and since their language was Arabic, that the Qur'an is pagan because it was written in a pagan language. I don't think you would accept that syllogism, and you shouldn't, but you are applying that very same way of thinking to Christianity. Whether speaking of Christianty or Islam, the logic is faulty that because they borrowed things from those who were pagans, or use some of the same images that pagans use that such similarities proves either to be pagan. It just doesn't follow.

Here's where he said it: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1025488

I'm not saying Christianity has its roots in paganism. Like you said, I believe paganism influenced Christianity to a great extent. The only argument is we is to have extent the pagan cults influenced Christianity.

The Romans preferred to control religions via their Imperial cult. They usually practiced religious tolerance, however, Christianity became a threat as it was a religion mainly of slaves, servants, and women initially. When it was finally admitted as the official religion of Rome, the role of the pontifex maximus changed to that of the pope, and as a claim that the pontifex maximus was never pope, the claim that St Peter was the first pope was added. I'm sure many protestants will agree with me...the main reason that MLK started the reformation was to escape the dogma of the vatican.

Peace.

[SixTen]

(O you to whom the Dhikr (the Qur'an) has been sent down! Verily, you are a mad man!) When Allah sent `Isa with proofs and guidance, the Jews, may Allah's curses, anger, torment and punishment be upon them, envied him because of his prophethood and obvious miracles; curing the blind and leprous and bringing the dead back to life, by Allah's leave. He also used to make the shape of a bird from clay and blow in it, and it became a bird by Allah's leave and flew. `Isa performed other miracles that Allah honored him with, yet the Jews defied and bellied him and tried their best to harm him. Allah's Prophet `Isa could not live in any one city for long and he had to travel often with his mother, peace be upon them. Even so, the Jews were not satisfied, and they went to the king of Damascus at that time, a Greek polytheist who worshipped the stars. They told him that there was a man in Bayt Al-Maqdis misguiding and dividing the people in Jerusalem and stirring unrest among the king's subjects. The king became angry and wrote to his deputy in Jerusalem to arrest the rebel leader, stop him from causing unrest, crucify him and make him wear a crown of thorns. When the king's deputy in Jerusalem received these orders, he went with some Jews to the house that `Isa was residing in, and he was then with twelve, thirteen or seventeen of his companions. That day was a Friday, in the evening. They surrounded `Isa in the house, and when he felt that they would soon enter the house or that he would sooner or later have to leave it, he said to his companions, "Who volunteers to be made to look like me, for which he will be my companion in Paradise'' A young man volunteered, but `Isa thought that he was too young. He asked the question a second and third time, each time the young man volunteering, prompting `Isa to say, "Well then, you will be that man.'' Allah made the young man look exactly like `Isa, while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and `Isa was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep. Allah said,

(And (remember) when Allah said: "O `Isa! I will take you and raise you to Myself.'') When `Isa ascended, those who were in the house came out. When those surrounding the house saw the man who looked like `Isa, they thought that he was `Isa. So they took him at night, crucified him and placed a crown of thorns on his head. The Jews then boasted that they killed `Isa and some Christians accepted their false claim, due to their ignorance and lack of reason. As for those who were in the house with `Isa, they witnessed his ascension to heaven, while the rest thought that the Jews killed `Isa by crucifixion. They even said that Maryam sat under the corpse of the crucified man and cried, and they say that the dead man spoke to her. All this was a test from Allah for His servants out of His wisdom. Allah explained this matter in the Glorious Qur'an which He sent to His honorable Messenger, whom He supported with miracles and clear, unequivocal evidence. Allah is the Most Truthful, and He is the Lord of the worlds Who knows the secrets, what the hearts conceal, the hidden matters in heaven and earth, what has occurred, what will occur, and what would occur if it was decreed. He said,

(but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared as that to them,) referring to the person whom the Jews thought was `Isa. This is why Allah said afterwards,

and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture.) referring to the Jews who claimed to kill `Isa and the ignorant Christians who believed them. Indeed they are all in confusion, misguidance and bewilderment. This is why Allah said,

For surely; they killed him not.) meaning they are not sure that `Isa was the one whom they killed. Rather, they are in doubt and confusion over this matter

But Allah raised him up unto Himself. And Allah is Ever All-Powerful,) meaning, He is the Almighty, and He is never weak, nor will those who seek refuge in Him ever be subjected to disgrace,

All-Wise.) in all that He decides and ordains for His creatures. Indeed, Allah's is the clearest wisdom, unequivocal proof and the most glorious authority. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "Just before Allah raised `Isa to the heavens, `Isa went to his companions, who were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair was dripping water and he said, `There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after he had believed in me.' He then asked, `Who volunteers that his image appear as mine, and be killed in my place. He will be with me (in Paradise)' One of the youngest ones among them volunteered and `Isa asked him to sit down. `Isa again asked for a volunteer, and the young man kept volunteering and `Isa asking him to sit down. Then the young man volunteered again and `Isa said, `You will be that man,' and the resemblance of `Isa was cast over that man while `Isa ascended to heaven from a hole in the house. When the Jews came looking for `Isa, they found that young man and crucified him. Some of `Isa's followers disbelieved in him twelve times after they had believed in him. They then divided into three groups. One group, Al-Ya`qubiyyah (Jacobites), said, `Allah remained with us as long as He willed and then ascended to heaven.' Another group, An-Nasturiyyah (Nestorians), said, `The son of Allah was with us as long as he willed and Allah took him to heaven.' Another group, Muslims, said, `The servant and Messenger of Allah remained with us as long as Allah willed, and Allah then took him to Him.' The two disbelieving groups cooperated against the Muslim group and they killed them. Ever since that happened, Islam was then veiled until Allah sent Muhammad .'' This statement has an authentic chain of narration leading to Ibn `Abbas, and An-Nasa'i narrated it through Abu Kurayb who reported it from Abu Mu`awiyah. Many among the Salaf stated that `Isa asked if someone would volunteer for his appearance to be cast over him, and that he will be killed instead of `Isa, for which he would be his companion in Paradise.

Allah states that the Children of Israel tried to kill `Isa by conspiring to defame him and crucify him. They complained about him to the king who was a disbeliever. They claimed that `Isa was a man who misguided people, discouraged them from obeying the king, caused division, and separated between man and his own son. They also said other lies about `Isa, which they will carry on their necks, including accusing him of being an illegitimate son. The king became furious and sent his men to capture `Isa to torture and crucify him. When they surrounded `Isa's home and he thought that they would surely capture him, Allah saved him from them, raising him up from the house to heaven. Allah put the image of `Isa on a man who was in the house; when the unjust people went in the house while it was still dark, they thought that he was `Isa. They captured that man, humiliated and crucified him. They also placed thorns on his head. However, Allah deceived these people. He saved and raised His Prophet from them, leaving them in disarray in the darkness of their transgression, thinking that they had successfully achieved their goal. Allah made their hearts hard, and defiant of the truth, disgracing them in such disgrace that it will remain with them until the Day of Resurrection.

(source : Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

The Islam version is clear, the deception was to punish the wrongdoers, what the christians will call Christ killers.

Allah also accuses christians who took him as God - as misguided with poor reasoning.

[Keltoi]

I would be curious as to what post that was in, for I never read it, and it doesn't sound like the Keltoi I know, unless you are mis-reading or mis-interpreting something else that he said.

What I agreed with Khan about was primarily Eastern Christian iconography being influenced by earlier pagan artwork. Iconography is simply religious artwork and symbolism. During the Roman period, Christianity was at odds with Roman pagan cults. There was something akin to an add campaign going on with both sides using age old images to get their point across. It was a stepping stone to the eventual transformation of pagan festivals into Christian festivals. Let the people keep their cultural activity, but change the focus and intent.

[Keltoi]

Here's where he said it: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1025488

The Romans preferred to control religions via their Imperial cult. They usually practiced religious tolerance, however, Christianity became a threat as it was a religion mainly of slaves, servants, and women initially. When it was finally admitted as the official religion of Rome, the role of the pontifex maximus changed to that of the pope, and as a claim that the pontifex maximus was never pope, the claim that St Peter was the first pope was added. I'm sure many protestants will agree with me...the main reason that MLK started the reformation was to escape the dogma of the vatican.

Peace.

Not entirely correct. The first pope was Stephen I from 254-257 AD. This was during the third wave of persecutions by the Romans. Christianity was legalized in 311 AD. The assertion that St. Peter was the first "pope"(the word wasn't used until much later) started long before Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the empire. St. Irenaeus makes the case for apostolic succession in 189 AD, in Against Heresies:

"With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

[The Khan]

Thanks for correcting me. I still see the modern post of pope inherited from that of pontifex maximus, however. Both are the same - head of religion, in this case, Roman Catholicism.

The role of the Caliph in Islam is a combination of head of state, head of government, and head of religion. Not just head of religion alone.

Wait a minute...wasn't pope Stephen I Bishop of Rome?

[Keltoi]

Thanks for correcting me. I still see the modern post of pope inherited from that of pontifex maximus, however. Both are the same - head of religion, in this case, Roman Catholicism.

The role of the Caliph in Islam is a combination of head of state, head of government, and head of religion. Not just head of religion alone.

Wait a minute...wasn't pope Stephen I Bishop of Rome?

Yes he was the Bishop of Rome, and the first Pope. As an aside, he was beheaded by Roman authorites in a catacomb where he was hiding during Mass. Supposedly the chair he was sitting in was preserved with blood stains still on it.

The papacy was not inherited from the pontifex. The similarities are circumstantial to the Roman Empire. The use of the word "inherited" implies some form of succession, which is not the case.

[The Khan]

I see.