can some one explain chirstianity ..

  • Thread starter Thread starter syed1
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 65
  • Views Views 20K
ahhh ... seems like a lot of work.. can some one just tell me one book that i should read .. can't be that hard..

what is the MAIN book.. the MAIN BIBLE -

The Bible is not a single book. It is actually an entire library, a collection of books. Hence, one cannot simply read one book of the Bible and say that they understand Christianity (or, for that matter, Judaism either). About the closest thing for what you are looking for that I could recommend is the two-volume work reportedly by Luke known to us today as Luke and Acts. If you are looking for a summary of Christian beleifs that encompass and summarize the whole of the Bible, you might want to read some written especially for that purpose; there are several options I could recommend if you're really interested.
 
I don't believe that he considers himself a Christian anymore. I could be wrong on that, but he certainly doesn't believe very many of the things that would be considered a mainstays of orthodox Christian beliefs.
His lack of belief stems from his scholarship of the all too frequent fabrications that aren't found in the so-called earlier texts.. one rather loses faith when one doesn't understand what God wants or what the hell the convoluted charade is all about...

best,
 
His lack of belief stems from his scholarship of the all too frequent fabrications that aren't found in the so-called earlier texts.. one rather loses faith when one doesn't understand what God wants or what the hell the convoluted charade is all about...

best,

Exactly.

Why would Bart remain believing in something that he has proved with evidence based on lies and fabrications?
 
What i always advice is to master your own religion first, and only then can you go ahead and look at other religions. Brother, am not saying that you lack in your islamic knowledge, what am trying to get at is for you to find out what you can improve on your deen and improve on that. I can tell you now, that is a much better way to spend your time.
 
Regarding the Bible, don't expect to read it (even the New Testament part) and come away with a clear understanding of basic Christian articles of faith. Brother Tyrion provided a good overview of basic Christian belief in post #10. The Nicene Creed is the best single explanation of Christian belief copied from the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' below:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

GraceSeeker is a minister of the Methodist denomination and would be able to provide answers to specific questions you may have from a Protestant perspective.

I have read Bart Ehrman's book, "Lost Christianities" and I found it to be very well researched and scholarly, but a bit too much detail for the average person.

I have also read "MisGod'ed: A Roadmap of Guidance and Misguidance in the Abrahamic Religions" by Laurence Brown and found it be be an excellent book on comparative religion. I also highly recommend his companion book, "God'ed?: The Case for Islam as the Completion of Revelation". If I were to recommend a single book on comparative religion, it would be "MisGod'ed", which is a play off the word "misguided", but I would also recommend "God'ed" which is a play off the word "guided".

http://www.amazon.com/MisGoded-Guid...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323533901&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Goded-Case-Islam-Completion-Revelation/dp/1419684604/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323533901&sr=1-5
 
I am trying to educate myself more about christiantiy and what they believe but I am not quite sure where to start..


what is the holy book they refer to ... i know it is the bible, but which one? why are there different books by matthew or paul etc?

Where should I start?

There are a lot of differences in particular doctrine between Christianity and the other monotheistic faiths (Islam and Judaism) but the one thing that really sets it apart is the idea of vicarious redemption through faith. They believe that we are born sinful and that nothing we can do will redeem us. They believe that it is not our works that will save us, but our faith and acceptance of Jesus' "gift" of being killed for our sins. They some how see it as moral and just and good for a perfect innocent being (Jesus) to suffer in our place so that we can be whiped clean of sin and go to heaven no matter what evil things we've done. That's the core of it, and that is why of the monotheistic religions I find it the most distasteful.

If you want to get a full understanding of the actual doctrine, I'd advise you to start with gaining an understanding of Judaism, as Christianity is an offshoot.
 
Last edited:
If you want to get a full understanding of the actual doctrine, I'd advise you to start with gaining an understanding of Judaism, as Christianity is an offshoot.

That is true ... the theology of the new testament ,at most ,is nothing but a radical,creative development of old testament themes ... eg: the concept of blood atonement (Islam opposes it totally) that clearly has a Jewish background ....
Christians inherited the gross errors of the Jews ,developing them into disasters, in both theory and practice !..
 
:sl:

Hey, I know that guy, Bart D. Ehrman, I’ve listened to some of his lectures on the NT, and I’ve got one of his books, “Misquoting Jesus: The story behind who changed the Bible and why” , I still have to check it out…haha.

But I don’t understand; he doesn’t believe the Bible to be the Word of God like the other Christians do, he calls it a “human book”…..then why is he still a Christian?
I guess he's Agnostic though….


Ehrmans' books among those of the most popular in the field of new testament ,they are very readable ,clear and straight ,though I find out that sometimes you will find very few contradictions between his points in his early works compared to the new ...
I read all his books , I would recommend:

1- The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings .(the one that benefited me most)
2- Misquoting Jesus.
3- Jesus, Interrupted
4- Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.
5- Lost Christianities
 
Last edited:
GraceSeeker is a minister of the Methodist denomination and would be able to provide answers to specific questions you may have from a Protestant perspective.

Notice that Mustafa acknowledges that I would be able to provide answers to questions from a Protestant perspective, but he does not recommend me when it comes to speaking to questions regarding Catholicism. Why is that, especially when I have studied both Catholic history and Catholic theology? The answer is simple: I myself am a protestant, not a Catholic.

For the same reason, I suggest you get your answers vis-a-vis Christianity from those who actually profess and believe the things you are asking questions about.
 
Notice that Mustafa acknowledges that I would be able to provide answers to questions from a Protestant perspective, but he does not recommend me when it comes to speaking to questions regarding Catholicism. Why is that, especially when I have studied both Catholic history and Catholic theology? The answer is simple: I myself am a protestant, not a Catholic.
Actually, I didn't know you were so well versed in Catholicism as I would venture to say that most Protestant ministers are not. You are welcome to correct me in any errors that I made in what I have written.
 
Actually, I didn't know you were so well versed in Catholicism as I would venture to say that most Protestant ministers are not. You are welcome to correct me in any errors that I made in what I have written.

No, I agree with you. No matter how much I may be educated with regard to Catholicism, I still view it all through my protestant lens. I can, and do, try to be as objective as possible. But there is no way that I can be objective enough to not let my some personal bias come through.

I feel the same with regard to Bart Ehrman. He is, and deserves to be, a respected scholar with regard to the history of Christianity and the Bible. He is well informed. But like any other person, he also has preconceived ideas with regard to those topics. Thus, if one is wanting to know what and why believing Christians think on a matter, he has (if I am properly informed with regard to his present set of beliefs) basically disqualified himself because of his lack of belief in the very things that one is asking about. That doesn't mean that his views wouldn't ultimately be more correct, but it does mean that they don't represent what a believer believes. For that, I would suggest just as credible of a scholar, equally recognized in all the same areas that Bart Ehrman is, but who is himself a practicing believer: N.T. Wright. Books and audio available here. But as with Ehrman (several of whose books I also have), I caution that he is not always the easiest read -- though I have been privileged to hear him lecture in person, and even my wife (whose education is not in any field of religious studies) was as equally able to follow him as I.

Another well-qualfied contemporary Christian author, perhaps a bit easier for the uninitiated to read, is Scot McKnight.

For someone wishing to understand the core of the Christian faith at its simplest I recommend McKnight's book, The Jesus Creed or Wright's book Simply Jesus.
For someone wishing to better understand the Bible I recommend Wright's book, Scripture and the Authority of God or perhaps a Bible survey such as Henrietta Mears' classic, What The Bible Is All About. For someone who is brand new to it, I would even recommend the kid's version of it as being especially helpful.
 
I feel the same with regard to Bart Ehrman. He is, and deserves to be, a respected scholar with regard to the history of Christianity and the Bible. He is well informed. But like any other person, he also has preconceived ideas with regard to those topics. Thus, if one is wanting to know what and why believing Christians think on a matter, he has (if I am properly informed with regard to his present set of beliefs) basically disqualified himself because of his lack of belief in the very things that one is asking about. That doesn't mean that his views wouldn't ultimately be more correct, but it does mean that they don't represent what a believer believes.

Bart ehrman presents facts and evidence, hard cold findings from his scholarships.
 
Bart ehrman presents facts and evidence, hard cold findings from his scholarships.

But the OP is asking about Christianity, not the historicity of the Bible. To learn about Christianity, he needs to ask Christians and look at their books himself. Scholars like Ehrman are knowledgeable, but they look at religious texts as if they were only historical documents, so what they say isn't necessarily taken by believing Christians. You wouldn't be saying this if we were talking about other historians that dismissed the Qur'an as the writings of a man in ancient Arabia... Would you?

Also, I've found that the points about the Bible's historicity, while interesting and helpful for Muslims, usually aren't particularly troublesome for Christians nowadays. Many Christians don't subscribe to the concept of Biblical inerrancy anymore... (Which, by the way, is something a practicing Christian could do, while a practicing Muslim could not)
 
Scholars like Ehrman are knowledgeable, but they look at religious texts as if they were only historical documents, so what they say isn't necessarily taken by believing Christians.

Through his scholarships, Ehrman addressed individual, specific claims by christians, and proved with evidence about veracity of such claims such as: John couldn't have written the gospel of John in the bible.
Also, which believing christians are we talking about?

You wouldn't be saying this if we were talking about other historians that dismissed the Qur'an as the writings of a man in ancient Arabia... Would you?

Ehrman rejected many specific claims made by christians with specific evidence and proof.
Can you please showed me a scholar who, based on evidence and scholarships equal to that of Ehrman, has proven that Qur'an was the writings of a man in ancient Arabia?
I'd really like to know.
We know that prophet Muhammad (saw) was conveyed with Qur'an, we don't need a "scholar" to tell us that. But we also make the claim that it originate from God (swt), now I'd like to see if there's a scholar who has proven Qur'an is not from God.
Remember, Ehrman does not just say "bible is error!" or that "bible is fabrication!"

Also, I've found that the points about the Bible's historicity, while interesting and helpful for Muslims, usually aren't particularly troublesome for Christians nowadays. Many Christians don't subscribe to the concept of Biblical inerrancy anymore... (Which, by the way, is something a practicing Christian could do, while a practicing Muslim could not)

That's right.
That's why I'm surprised that you say believing christians do not necessarily subscribed to Ehrman's findings and evidence.
It seems for christians what matters is just faith. No evidence nor logic is necessary.
 
Last edited:
I am trying to educate myself more about christiantiy and what they believe but I am not quite sure where to start..


what is the holy book they refer to ... i know it is the bible, but which one? why are there different books by matthew or paul etc?

Where should I start?

As a Christian who is visiting this forum to learn more about Islam, perhaps I can help. I'd start with a front to back read of the New Testament -- if using an English translation, I recommend the NIV (New International Version) as it was compiled over several years from the earliest extant text documents by a team of international biblical text and language scholars. A solid NIV study bible gives a summary and analysis of each New Testament book and its author.

Some Christians consider the present New Testament text infallible. I don't, since we have none of the original autographs of any of the books, only copies -- and text criticism hints at editing in those. There are four gospels -- three "synoptics", Matthew, Mark, Luke, which largely overlap but are addressed to different audiences, Matthew to a Jewish audience, Luke to Gentiles, and the shortest, Mark, perhaps one of the sources for the other two. The fourth gospel, John, was the last one written, and has a more Greek/Hellenistic tone and emphasis. The Acts of the Apostles was once a part of Luke, and is believed to have the same author. The Apostle Paul's epistles were the earliest written Christian texts. There are epistles of others, such as John, Peter and James, and finally the controversial Book of Revelation (end-times) attributed to the same Apostle John who wrote the Gospel of John and Johannine Epistles.

There is a fairly large volume of Christian Apocrypha, books which were rejected for the New Testament canon (which was established at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century), many for good reason. However, some of the Apocryphal books were widespread and widely accepted in the early Church, and reading these can give you a better idea of early Church beliefs; I and II Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, The Gospel of Thomas, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Odes of Solomon, The Wisdom of Solomon.

IMO, reading the works of the very early Church fathers is essential for understanding how the early Christians interpreted the New Testament teachings and practiced their beliefs. In the West (Rome), Clement of Rome, Ignatias, Polycarp. In the East (Alexandria), Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athenagoras. You'll find different expressions of Christian beliefs, perhaps because they were speaking to different audiences, and in some ways they actually held slightly different understandings, but all resulted in similar practices, rules of living, lifestyles, so these very early Christians were essentially unified in spirit and practice.

The first real schism was with Judaism (in areas where Judaism was practiced), the next with the gnostic sects, who taught a matter/spirit dualism which de-emphasized the need for "doing good works" in this life, since only the spirit and knowledge, not matter and this earthly life, were important -- or, as the more orthodox church fathers complained, they were lazy... We still have a lot of those, although many don't self-designate themselves as such.

Iraneus was the first of the church fathers to suggest the need for a more unified theology, and his writings about "heresies" ignited a new movement toward that goal. St. Augustine's writings are considered the essential primer on what became the official orthodox theology of the early Christian Church, in the 4th century, AD.

As you probably know, since that time, the Christian Church has split into factions upon factions, beginning with the Roman Catholic split from the Orthodox Church (usually referred to, in Western countries, as the Greek or Eastern Orthodox Church), then the Protestant movement's split from the Roman Catholic Church, beginning with Martin Luther (from what I've read, the Catholic Church was badly corrupted at that time), and since then it all cascaded to the point that today there are so many conflicting and contradictory Christian theologies, there is no such thing as "A" Christian theology, there are dozens -- hundreds, if you count all the smaller sects and factions. That's why many of us Christians go back and study these very early writings, to better understand how the contemporaries of Jesus (the Apostles) and their students/disciples understood and practiced Christianity.

Hope this helps. Sorry to be so wordy, but this is the only subject on this forum I know a little something about -- most of the time I'll be a lurking reader and asking questions. rebecca
 
Hi there Rebecca, thanks for your help. will definitely grab a hold of the NT and give it a read.
 
Ironically Christianity and their their scriptures, The Bible, are too very different things.

Christianity usually includes the belief in original sin, that Jesus was sacrificed to save mankind from its sins, and the trinity, including the idea of the manhood of God/Godhood of a man in the form of Jesus.

The concept of the Trinity and Jesus being God are concepts that weren't yet around for the earliest Christians, whose belief was still inherently Judaic and unitarian therefore they aren't found in the Bible. The notions of original sin and Jesus being sacraficed to save mankind from its sin come from the the Epistles by Paul of Tarsis, concepts/teachings which aren't found in the rest of the Bible (The Old Testament and the Gospels). Therefore, though one would expect reading The Bible would teach one a lot about Christianity, it doesn't because the majority of scriptures aren't ingrained with the kind of concepts that are later became embedded in Christianity.
 
Ironically Christianity and their their scriptures, The Bible, are too very different things.

Christianity usually includes the belief in original sin, that Jesus was sacrificed to save mankind from its sins, and the trinity, including the idea of the manhood of God/Godhood of a man in the form of Jesus.

The concept of the Trinity and Jesus being God are concepts that weren't yet around for the earliest Christians, whose belief was still inherently Judaic and unitarian therefore they aren't found in the Bible. The notions of original sin and Jesus being sacraficed to save mankind from its sin come from the the Epistles by Paul of Tarsis, concepts/teachings which aren't found in the rest of the Bible (The Old Testament and the Gospels). Therefore, though one would expect reading The Bible would teach one a lot about Christianity, it doesn't because the majority of scriptures aren't ingrained with the kind of concepts that are later became embedded in Christianity.

First post, and yet already wrote such a clear, succinct and yet complete brief about christianity.
I'm impressed.
 
Salam! At least one other person on here has written that you should read and study the Qur'an and hadiths. Do that. Don't get into studying the bible until you have the Qur'an and hadiths firmly in you. I studied the bible for years as a christian. I was a 'born-again' christian for years and wanted to go to bible college to learn biblical hebrew so I could read the old testament in its original language. There's a lot to study in the bible and the fact that there are thousands of denominations in christianity shows that they don't even agree on what things exactly are taught. I gave all that up when I left christianity for several different reasons. You've been told about Bart Ehrman who regrettably became an atheist. Others you can research are Dr Gary Miller (ex Canadian missionary), Sheikh Yusuf Estes, and Dr Laurence Brown. Keep going with those guys and they won't put you wrong.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top