Muslims converting to Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Draco
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 464
  • Views Views 49K
Grace Seeker said:
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).
Click to expand...

But that was way after Jesus, no? Is there any evidence that Jesus called them Christians or that they called themselves Christians while Jesus was among them?
 
Grace Seeker said:
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).
Click to expand...

This Barnabas that you mention - is this the same person whose Gospel is rejected by the Church?
 
MustafaMc said:
Didn't he prophesy about the coming of the Comforter, who we Muslims believe refers to Prophet Muhammad (saaws).
Click to expand...

I've seen those websites that try to show this. I am yet to be convinced. What I don't understand is how everyone seems to miss, or more likely dismiss, that Jesus himself, in the very same passage identifies that the Comforter (Counselor/Helper/Advocate, whatever word you use to translate paracletos) is the Holy Spirit.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. (John 14:16-17a)
Click to expand...

Now if it was just one verse that made that connection, maybe, maybe, I might believe that this "Spirit of truth" is something/someone different than the Holy Spirit. But it isn't just one verse. Jesus continues later in this same conversation with his disciples to make the connection yet a second time. And this time it is even more clear.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)
Click to expand...

And the role of this counselor is completely different than what Muhammad does as well. Muhammad testifies with regard to Allah. But that is NOT the role of the counselor (the Spirit) that the Father is going to send:
When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he [that is the Counselor, the Spirit] will testify about me [Jesus]. (John 15:26)
Click to expand...
 
MadeenJibreel said:
This Barnabas that you mention - is this the same person whose Gospel is rejected by the Church?
Click to expand...
No, the Barnabas that I mentioned never wrote a gospel. Someone many years later appears to have forged something and then falsely attached his name to it. The best proof of this is that the early church never even mentions a Gospel of Barnabas, not as an accepted book, not as a rejected book. Why not? Simple, because no such book was ever presented to them as no such book existed for many more hundreds of years. And I have even seen Muslim scholars admit to this.
 
Last edited:
MadeenJibreel said:
But that was way after Jesus, no? Is there any evidence that Jesus called them Christians or that they called themselves Christians while Jesus was among them?
Click to expand...

No one said that they did. In fact, if you would simply read what I gave you that Luke wrote, you would see the answer to your question. Luke said that the first time that Christians were called Christians was during the time of Paul's ministry in Antioch. Well, since Paul did not become a follower of Jesus during Jesus' earthly lifetime. It follows that the first time anyone was ever called a Christians was after Jesus was no longer among them.

The term Christian means one who belongs to Christ. It was used in Antioch to distinguish between Jews who belong to various different sects within Judaism. Those who belong to the sect that followed the teaching of Rabbi Jesus, whom they claimed to be the Christ, were called Christians because that identified to others to whom it was that they belonged and what teachings they followed.
 
Last edited:
MadeenJibreel said:
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?
Click to expand...

i am not a christian so i will leave that one. (btw, i'm not a jew either, though i know a bit about it).
what i was trying to say is that it is better to share what you consider the beauty of islam than to tear down another religion, regardless of how misguided you perceive it to be.
 
Grace Seeker said:
No, the Barnabas that I mentioned never wrote a gospel. Someone many years later appears to have forged something and then falsely attached his name to it. The best proof of this is that the early church never even mentions a Gospel of Barnabas, not as an accepted book, not as a rejected book. Why not? Simple, because no such book was ever presented to them as no such book existed for many more hundreds of years. And I have even seen Muslim scholars admit to this.
Click to expand...

OK, appreciate this info. Why is it that the Church rejected so many Gospels (apocrypha)?
 
snakelegs said:
i am not a christian so i will leave that one. (btw, i'm not a jew either, though i know a bit about it).
what i was trying to say is that it is better to share what you consider the beauty of islam than to tear down another religion, regardless of how misguided you perceive it to be.
Click to expand...

Agree, but the subject here has a different connotation.
 
Could somebody pls post a link to apocrypha? I'd like to see what is it in those Gospels that doesn't fit into the pattern. Thanks.
 
MadeenJibreel said:
You mean - it didn't fit (or couldn't fit) into the context of say....trinity (and similar)?
Click to expand...

Well yep, and that Jesus was not divine, just a ordinary bloke who took up preaching in his late twenties and got successful in his early thirties, untill he got too successful.
 
MadeenJibreel said:
OK, appreciate this info. Why is it that the Church rejected so many Gospels (apocrypha)?
Click to expand...

The church didn't reject as much as simply not accept everything that was written as gospel. And yes, I do think there is a difference between rejecting and simply not accepting.

In the life of the early church many writings were produced. Some were produced by known apostles. Others were produced by people who had been discipled by these apostles. Others still were produced by not just 2nd but 3rd and even 4th generation or farther removed Christians from the person of Jesus or the leadership of the first generation of the church. Many of these things were found to be quite helpful and circulated widely amongst the scattered Christian congregations. However, as more and more material became available, it became harder and harder for the average Christian to discern what was good devotional reading, what was good for use as a standard of rule and practice, and what was really some hair-brained writing produced by a wacko who didn't have any connection to Jesus or any of the apostles at all. So, to answer this question, different people began producing lists of the books that they considered to be profitable for use in the church, or books to be used in worship, or books to be used to teach the faith. Each person had their own standards as to what they were looking for in making their list, but it really wasn't long before in comparing those lists they church realized that they pretty much already were in agreement.

There were a few that were debated. Not everyone thought that Revelation should be included, but the belief that it was written by the Apostle John as dictated to him by Christ pretty much assured its place. Others wanted to include a book called the Shepherd of Hermas, but uncertainty over its authorship, the lateness of its writing (in the 2nd century after the death of all the apostles) and the fact that it was written as an allegory rather than an actual telling of the Christians faith resulted in a consensus that it be used more as a purely devotional book than that it should become the rule of faith and practice. For ultimately that is what the word "canon" when applied to scripture means. The canon is that body of literature which is the standard by which one's faith and the practice of that faith can be measured.

Most other books, not all of which are gospels, simply weren't even ever seriously considered, and so I can't really say they were actually rejected. But we do reject them as scripture today because the early church never accepted them as suitable to be considered the rule for faith and practice.


For more information about the Apocrypha, these links will give you some more history on it, and then give links to the actual books:
New Advent Encylcopedia and Early Christian Writings. This later link does not include all of the apocrypha because much of it is actual Jewish writings that the Jews did not include as part of their Tanakah. Plus this includes all major early Christian writings including that which is in the Bible, apocryphal Christian writings, and other Christian writings.
 
Last edited:
salaam/peace;

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


but Jesus (p) did not teach them about Trinity.

Jews in the past were arrogant ...they killed many Prophets (pbut ) of God . It's not that Quran only says so , Jews own holy book tells u that.
 
Grace Seeker said:
I've seen those websites that try to show this. I am yet to be convinced. What I don't understand is how everyone seems to miss, or more likely dismiss, that Jesus himself, in the very same passage identifies that the Comforter (Counselor/Helper/Advocate, whatever word you use to translate paracletos) is the Holy Spirit.

Now if it was just one verse that made that connection, maybe, maybe, I might believe that this "Spirit of truth" is something/someone different than the Holy Spirit. But it isn't just one verse. Jesus continues later in this same conversation with his disciples to make the connection yet a second time. And this time it is even more clear.

And the role of this counselor is completely different than what Muhammad does as well. Muhammad testifies with regard to Allah. But that is NOT the role of the counselor (the Spirit) that the Father is going to send:
Click to expand...
Yes, this is the Christian point of view. When one looks at scripture through the lense of their own personal belief and bias, he interprets prophetic statements according to this background. I personally believe that the Comforter in John refers to Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.

When did the Holy Spirit ever speak to humankind? If the Holy Spirit did speak and if it is fully God just like Jesus (as) and the Father are fully God (Christian concept of Trinity), why would it "not speak from himself, but what things soever he shall hear"? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit know and be able to "speak from himself"?
 
Muslim Woman said:
salaam/peace;




but Jesus (p) did not teach them about Trinity.

Jews in the past were arrogant ...they killed many Prophets (pbut ) of God . It's not that Quran only says so , Jews own holy book tells u that.
Click to expand...
:sl:

To avoid charges of anti-something and discourage the idiots on the forum; can we instead say:

Israelis were of 3 types
  1. Ones who did wrong
  2. Ones who tried to stop wrong-doer
  3. ones who neither took part in wrong doing nor did they stop the bad guys
 
MustafaMc said:
Yes, this is the Christian point of view. When one looks at scripture through the lense of their own personal belief and bias, he interprets prophetic statements according to this background. I personally believe that the Comforter in John refers to Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.

When did the Holy Spirit ever speak to humankind? If the Holy Spirit did speak and if it is fully God just like Jesus (as) and the Father are fully God (Christian concept of Trinity), why would it "not speak from himself, but what things soever he shall hear"? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit know and be able to "speak from himself"?
Click to expand...

Masha'Allah :)

Awesome!
 
MustafaMc said:
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?
Click to expand...
Today, the term muslims stands for people who follow Islam, the Quran etc. Moses knew nothing about the Quran, it's tachings, rules etc. He was not a Mohammedan.
 
Whatsthepoint said:
Today, the term muslims stands for people who follow Islam, the Quran etc. Moses knew nothing about the Quran, it's tachings, rules etc. He was not a Mohammedan.
Click to expand...

But the source from which Moses got his commandments is the same as where Muhammad got his commandments.

The essential principles such as worshipping One God etc stayed the same but certain rulings were adjusted to suit the people and time.

Muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam came with the ruling for all of mankind till the very last day.


This is our belief! the belief of all collective muslims
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top