Muslims converting to Christianity

[Muslim Woman]

where is mod ??? The thread is not even close to its original topic-Muslims converting to Christianity

 

[Amadeus85]

where is mod ??? The thread is not even close to its original topic-Muslims converting to Christianity

Yes, you are right. We should get back to topic, or mod should close it.

 

[MadeenJibreel]

Well again you just show your point of view, and you shouldnt think that others will accept ffended:.
BTW could you give me one single proof that muslims existed before the times of muslim prophet Muhammed? Just one single please.

Yes, sure. First of all, you gotta know where does that word come from. It comes from Arabic word, see below.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Muslim
[Arabic muslim, one who surrenders, active participle of 'aslama, to surrender; see Islam.]

A Muslim is one who surrenders to His One and Only Creator, a Muslim is one who accepts God's Law and live his life by the way He prescribed it, etc.

By this very definition, i.e. Jesus and Moses and Abraham, ..., peace upon them all, were Muslims. Now if you don't believe me what Muslim means, then I say to you: ask the Muslims. Like if you wanna know what a Christian means, ask the Christians. I hope that's fair?

 

[MustafaMc]

Well again you just show your point of view, and you shouldnt think that others will accept ffended:.
BTW could you give me one single proof that muslims existed before the times of muslim prophet Muhammed? Just one single please.

Was Prophet Abraham (as) a Jew or a Christian? Did he follow the Law of Moses? Did he accept Jesus (as) as the Son of God and his personal saviour? No, of course he didn't.

Was he a Muslim? Didn't he submit his will to that of the One God by going to sacrifice his only son?

 

[MustafaMc]

For christians everyone who comes after Christ and calls himself a prophet of God is false prophet.

Perhaps, you could quote a verse or two where Jesus (as) said this.

Didn't he prophesy about the coming of the Comforter, who we Muslims believe refers to Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

 

[snakelegs]

here is an extract from a rather dry article on jewishencyclopediaonline

"......In order to find a precedent the Rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term "toshab" ("sojourner," "aborigine," referring to the Canaanites; see Maimonides' explanation in "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7; see Grätz, l.c. p. 15), in connection with "ger" (see Ex. xxv. 47, where the better reading would be "we-toshab"). Another name for one of this class was "proselyte of the gate" ("ger ha-sha'ar," that is, one under Jewish civil jurisdiction; comp. Deut. v. 14, xiv. 21, referring to the stranger who had legal claims upon the generosity and protection of his Jewish neighbors). In order to be recognized as one of these the neophyte had publicly to assume, before three "ḥaberim," or men of authority, the solemn obligation not to worship idols, an obligation which involved the recognition of the seven Noachian injunctions as binding ('Ab. Zarah 64b; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7).The application to half-converts of all the laws obligatory upon the sons of Jacob, including those that refer to the taking of interest, or to retaining their hire overnight, or to drinking wine made by non-Jews, seems to have led to discussion and dissension among the rabbinical authorities.

The more rigorous seem to have been inclined to insist upon such converts observing the entire Law, with the exception of the reservations and modifications explicitly made in their behalf. The more lenient were ready to accord them full equality with Jews as soon as they had solemnly forsworn idolatry. The "via media" was taken by those that regarded public adherence to the seven Noachian precepts as the indispensable prerequisite (Gerim iii.; 'Ab. Zarah 64b; Yer. Yeb. 8d; Grätz, l.c. pp. 19-20). The outward sign of this adherence to Judaism was the observance of the Sabbath (Grätz, l.c. pp. 20 et seq.; but comp. Ker. 8b).

thanks. i will have to wait until either rav comes back or another knowledgeable jew picks up that judaism thread again. i have never heard of this half-convert concept before, but there is a lot i don't know. :hmm:

 

[snakelegs]

Some Jews were too proud to accept the Revelation given to Jesus (peace upon him)

it had absolutely nothing to do with pride. jews, like muslims, would consider the trinity idolatry - you should know that.

 

[MadeenJibreel]

it had absolutely nothing to do with pride. jews, like muslims, would consider the trinity idolatry - you should know that.

Perhaps jealous then? Sure. Their problem was that Jesus, peace upon him, was sent to bring the good news, but also to correct the distorted belief of the Jews, who in fact distorted some of the God's Laws in order to gain earthly profit and/or to satisfy the sick desires of their souls (with matters of this life and not the next, eternal one).

So, in a few words, their problem was that God sent a messenger among them, but many didn't want eternity, there are such cases which can be proven by solely using the Bible. Not to mention that Jews even killed some of the messengers of Almighty, peace upon all those messengers.

 

[snakelegs]

Perhaps jealous then? Sure. Their problem was that Jesus, peace upon him, was sent to bring the good news, but also to correct the distorted belief of the Jews, who in fact distorted some of the God's Laws in order to gain earthly profit and/or to satisfy the sick desires of their souls (with matters of this life and not the next, eternal one).

So, in a few words, their problem was that God sent a messenger among them, but many didn't want eternity, there are such cases which can be proven by solely using the Bible. Not to mention that Jews even killed some of the messengers of Almighty, peace upon all those messengers.

i am not going to debate whose religion is the best. but the jews' rejection of jesus had nothing to do with pride or jealousy.
if you have a problem with jews, it's - well, your problem.
my point was just that jews would have rejected the trinity concept just as muslims (and me too) do.

 

[snakelegs]

by the way, i realize that you think jews and christians are wrong and that's cool, but aren't you as a muslim, supposed to deal with people of the book with respect?

 

[Grace Seeker]

did they not stop feeding them to lions after blending Paulism and Roman Paganism (Perhaps Romans were running out of Christians who followed mosaic laws)?:hiding:

Christians (and others) were fed to the lions up through the 3rd century. Any "blending" had already begun, but of course would continue for another 200 years after that until the fall of the Roman Empire.

Persecutions were not continous and often were harsher in one province than another depending on who was governing at the time. But curiously, the harshest of all the persecutions was just before Constantine under Diocletian.

On February 24, 303, Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" was published.[2] This ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures and places of worship across the Empire, while prohibiting Christians from assembling for worship. Those that refused to surrender their sacred writings faced imprisonment and death. Later that year, after a fire in Nicomedia (possibly started by Galerius to frame the Christians) and insurrections in Syria and Armenia, Diocletian issued two further edicts, one ordering that the Christians of Nicomedia be put to torture and death as punishment for arson, the other ordering that the bishops and teachers of the churches throughout his domains be imprisoned and forced by torture to sacrifice to the gods of Roman paganism. In 304, a fourth edict made the persecution general: not merely the Christian leaders, but all Christians, were to offer sacrifices to the gods, compelled by torture if necessary.

The reasons for this persecution are unclear, but Diocletian's actions may have been based on the influence of his junior colleague Galarius (a fanatical adherent of Roman religion), Porphyry (an anti-Christian Neoplatonist philosopher), or the usual desire for political unity.

In any case, Diocletian published four edicts of 303-04. The emperor ordered the burning of Christian books and churches, but promised not to spill any blood. In actuality, the Diocletian persecution turned out to be extremely violent. This violence "did not succeed in annihilating Christianity but caused the faith of the martyrs to blaze forth instead."

The emperor ordered the doors of the Christian church at Nicomedia, the capital, to be barred, and then burnt the edifice with 600 Christians within. Many edicts were issued by him against Christians. Churches were demolished, Christian books were seized and burnt, Christians were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and killed.

According to Schaff, "Christian churches were to be burned, all copies of the Bible were to be burned; all Christians were to be deprived of public office and civil rights; and last, all, without exception, were to sacrifice to the gods upon pain of death."

A fifth edict was issued by co-regent Galerius in 308 ordering that all men, with wives, children, and servants, were to offer sacrifice to the gods, "and that all provisions in the markets should be sprinkled with sacrificial wine." As a result, Christians either had to commit apostasy or starve. Says Schaff: "All the pains, which iron and steel, fire and sword, rack and cross, wild beasts and beastly men could inflict, were employed" against the church. Executioners grew tired with all the work they had to do.

The tide finally turned in the terrible struggle between paganism and Christianity in 311 when Galerius admitted defeat in trying to bring Christians back to the pagan religions. He gave Christians permission to meet as long as they didn’t disturb the order of the state. He even requested that they pray to their God for the welfare of the state.

source: Wikipedia​

Though no doubt there is always blending between religion and culture in any place (I suspect even in Arabia), as one can see, it wasn't so much that Christians became pagans, but that eventually pagan Rome surrendered to Christianity. Sadly, I think there was actually more blending after Constantine than before, as quickly many adopted Chrsitianity as their nominal religion without really becoming true disciples of Christ.

(Not sure how any of this is on topic, but this thread is wandering all over the place and I guess no one is really objecting.)

 

[MadeenJibreel]

i am not going to debate whose religion is the best. but the jews' rejection of jesus had nothing to do with pride or jealousy.
if you have a problem with jews, it's - well, your problem.
my point was just that jews would have rejected the trinity concept just as muslims (and me too) do.

I wasn't going into a debate on what religion is superior; there's only One True Religion as sent by Almighty. All others are product of a human mind. Jesus, peace upon him, never was a Christian, never claimed divinity, etc. he was a pure monotheist in the purest form possible.

"Jews' pride had nothing to do ..."
You don't have to agree with me, but if you read the Bible, you will see it, and feel it. I don't have a problem with Jews, perhaps they have problem with them own selves, by denying the Truth sent from Allah (swt).

> my point was just that jews would have rejected the trinity concept just as muslims
Yes, of course, agreed. Every sane person will reject the trinity, especially if you know that it originated from roman paganism. We're approaching the end of the year where millions of Christians will "celebrate" x-mas, yet another pagan holiday. And Jesus' birth had nothing to do with that day, and he had nothing to do with paganism. He was inviting the whole nation of Jews unto the belief into One True God, Who has no partners and no daughters and no sons. He surely wasn't inviting them to paganism, contrary to what Saul did.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The whole thing around Islam, Christianity and Judaism is very simple. These are the facts and no-, I mean nobody can deny them:

1. Jews before and at the time of Jesus (peace upon him):
They followed what was given to Moses (peace upon him), but when Allah (swt) sent Jesus (peace upon him) and gave him the Revelation, which would restore the distortions Jews had made to the Revelation given to Moses (peace upon him), some followed Jesus (peace upon him) and some didn't.

2. Christians before and at the time of Muhammed (blessings and peace be upon him):
They followed what was given to Jesus (peace upon him), but when Allah (swt) sent Muhammed (blessings and peace be upon him) and gave him the Revelation, which would be the Final Revelation and for all mankind, some followed him (blessings and peace be upon him) and some didn't. Same goes for Jews in that time. And same goes for those (a)theists, poly/multi-theists, etc.

Some Jews were too proud to accept the Revelation given to Jesus (peace upon him), and some (Jews, Christians, Kuffaar, etc.) were/are too proud to accept the Revelation given to Muhammed (blessings and peace be upon him).

The same stands even today. Those who hear the Message of Islam and don't accept it, are - generally speaking - arroganters.

I not only can deny what you present as facts, I deny that they actually are facts.

Now, why are you trying to take definitions of Islam or the Qur'an using some bad web sites, or better to say, a non-Muslim? If you want to read true explanations of the Qur'an, then take it from the Scholars of Islam, not from auto mechanics or similar, is that not fair?

Now why are you trying to take definitions of Chrsitianity or the Bible using some bad web sites, or better to say, non-Christian? I fyou want to read true explanations of the Bible, then take it from pastors, not from auto mechanics or similar, is that not fair?

 

[snakelegs]

Jesus, peace upon him, never was a Christian, QUOTE]

with this, i can agree.

 

[MadeenJibreel]

by the way, i realize that you think jews and christians are wrong and that's cool, but aren't you as a muslim, supposed to deal with people of the book with respect?

Is it not respect to invite them to Truth? Is it not respect to tell them to re-think about matters like "How can Almighty have a son?", "How can He be caught in flesh?", "What justice is that if an innocent person dies for all the sins of mankind (this sounds weird at least)?", "How come some believe God is everywhere? (this raises questions like - where was He before creation of the Universe, etc.? may He forgive me, I'm only pointing out abnormal failures of average Christians mind).

Is it not respect to tell them to think twice before they say something offending against Jesus?

 

[MadeenJibreel]

I not only can deny what you present as facts, I deny that they actually are facts.



Now why are you trying to take definitions of Chrsitianity or the Bible using some bad web sites, or better to say, non-Christian? I fyou want to read true explanations of the Bible, then take it from pastors, not from auto mechanics or similar, is that not fair?

Tell me..you know the incident described in the Bible, when those rabis had problems with Jesus? He surely wasn't happy with what they were doing. Many facts from history point out to the bad state many Jews were in, with some of their rabis leading the squad.

About the definitions - it's enough for me to take the Bible as proof. No need to go any further.

 

[Grace Seeker]

For christians everyone who comes after Christ and calls himself a prophet of God is false prophet.

Not to dispute my brother in Christ (I think I know what you meant), but we must not forget that prophecy is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, there were indeed many prophets -- "In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul." (Acts 13:1) -- but there is no new final revelation as there is no need seeing as how Christ has already "finished" everything that needs to be done by his death on the cross. And denying that as having really taken place is proof enough for me of a book as not being true or from God.

 

[snakelegs]

Is it not respect to invite them to Truth? Is it not respect to tell them to re-think about matters like "How can Almighty have a son?", "How can He be caught in flesh?", "What justice is that if an innocent person dies for all the sins of mankind (this sounds weird at least)?", "How come some believe God is everywhere? (this raises questions like - where was He before creation of the Universe, etc.? may He forgive me, I'm only pointing out abnormal failures of average Christians mind).

Is it not respect to tell them to think twice before they say something offending against Jesus?

it is not the inviting that is the problem.
i think you need to hone your dawah skills. you do not invite people to islam by being disrespectful and alienating them.

 

[MadeenJibreel]

it is not the inviting that is the problem.
i think you need to hone your dawah skills. you do not invite people to islam by being disrespectful and alienating them.

I don't know how you see all of that as disrespectful, perhaps if I asked Christians something like this: "Why do you pray to Jesus, or to Mary, or to Holy Ghost, as Jesus clearly instructed to pray to God alone (BTW Jesus also prayed to God, in fact he even prostrated):"

Prayer
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Perhaps Christians here could answer that question?

 

[Grace Seeker]

BTW, does a word Christianity exist in the Bible?

Why would the word Christianity appear in the Bible? That was the title accepted by the followers of Jesus Christ.

You have a proof for this? Or are you lying on them?

The Christian historian Luke recorded this bit of information: "Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 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." You can read it for yourself in a book he wrote entitled, Acts (chapter 11, verses 25 & 26).