Muslims converting to Christianity

[Grace Seeker]

So whats the difference between Mohammedan and Muslim? (according to your logic) none!

follower of islam: A Muslim
follower of (Paulean) Christ: ?
follower of Budha: ?
and so on...

I have come across many a goofy who used same reasoning as you, when one tries to stop them from chanting Ya RasulAllah or Ya Ali madad etc.

one dam*ed slippery slope!

Though we read his letters, and they do inform us, Christians do not follow Paul, that is a false idea that Muslims try to foster on others, but it is just that, false. The one we follow is Jesus, the Christ, hence the name... Christ-ian.

 

[MadeenJibreel]

Yes, Islam is submitting one's self to the will of God. And I agree that Jesus most certianly did. What I cannot agree is that Muhammad (I still wish peace to be upon him) in fact got the message right. When he says that that God's angel told him that Jesus never died on the cross, all I can conclude is that either Muhammad misheard or was listening to an angel who he thought was Jibreel, but really wasn't. Indeed it was being willing to submit to God that led Jesus to the cross, to deny that is to deny that Jesus was submissive. And though Jesus would not be born until generations later, I believe that the holy scriptures teach that Abraham and Moses longed for Jesus' day and were submissive to him as an act of faith. To say that they would not recognize Jesus as God is to say that they would not be submissive to God, and for Muslim today to deny that this is who Jesus is likewise is not living a life of submission to the one true God.

So, I guess it all depends not on how you define Islam (for we agree on its meaning) but on who it is that one submitts to. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Jesus none of them were submissive to God in the way that a modern day Muslim defines being submissive to Allah. If they were followers of Islam, then today's Muslim is not.

It would be a good thing if you could watch these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2J2sF476ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Hc4Ea3nTY

There's a lot more though...

 

[Umar001]

I don't know what happened to my reply,

Take 2

Yeah, Islam and muslims are very widely defined. Every monotheist can be a muslim and not every muslim is a muslim...
But then, would Moses still be considered a muslim, if he believed there was no hell?

Depends on his knowledge,

Is it wrong for the Jews, who don't belive in hell and claim the same for Moses, to say he was not a muslim? Is it wrong for them to say Moses wasn't a muslim, because according to their faith he did not believe in the day of the Judgement?

I would consider it wrong because we are taking our source to provide evidence for a historical personality, if we cannot provide reasonable evidence to conclude that the sources are highly probable of being accurate then it is wrong for us to say such and such a person believed such and such.

Would you think it would be right for me to say to someone, Whatsthepoint said.... if I cannot show my sources are accurate? Would that not be a form of lieing upon a person?

...Some of whom claim that there are no less than 4 writers/compilers and a editor to the Torah, some claim it had 5 authors...some claim he never existed! I personally think the latter are closest to the truth.

That's probable, we would have to look at the evidences for all positions and asses the probability of all.

Even if 3 more people wrote the Torah, it is odd that Moses didn't say anything about the day of the judgement, hell etc in the parts he wrote.

Well we would have to see which interpretation of the evidence is most probable.

The evidence you have given is that the Torah does not speak of the day of Judgement, now the next step would be to interpret this evidence, various interpretations could be given, it could be that Moses never spoke about it, or that the authors left it out deliberately, or that the sources of the authors had left it out, or that it became lost in oral tradition etc.

We would have to view which interpretation is most probable.

And even if he did believe in those things and for some reason didn't write them down, it's up to muslims to prove he ahd knowledge of them. If you can't prove that clearly, it is a part of your faith. And your faith is no better than that of the Jews, who belive Moses was not a muslim.

Yes, muslims would have to show why they believe Moses believed in any tenets. And muslims would have to show that their sources are right and justified and accurate, right?

As for your statement that our faith is no better than the faith of the Jews than thats not right, because you have to check what the faith is based on.

Theories can be put into the same categories of theories, but it does not make them all the same strength. Faith can be put in a category of faith, but it does not mean all are of the same strengths!

Eesa

 

[snakelegs]

Though we read his letters, and they do inform us, Christians do not follow Paul, that is a false idea that Muslims try to foster on others, but it is just that, false. The one we follow is Jesus, the Christ, hence the name... Christ-ian.

this reminds me of something i've wondered about - about what percentage of the teachings in the NT is actually jesus' words rather than what paul or others said about him?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Yes, muslims would have to show why they believe Moses believed in any tenets. And muslims would have to show that their sources are right and justified and accurate, right?

Yeah...Can they?

for your statement that our faith is no better than the faith of the Jews than thats not right, because you have to check what the faith is based on.

Theories can be put into the same categories of theories, but it does not make them all the same strength. Faith can be put in a category of faith, but it does not mean all are of the same strengths!

Eesa

Well, for a Jew Judaism is the best faith, for a muslim Islam is the best faith. The same goes for most religions...To me religions are pretty much the same in terms of bestness. I like Islam for its significant amount of book-miracles, I like Christianity for its charm, personal human-God relationship and slightly less significant amount of book miracles.
Now, I don't even know what crietria can be used to detrmine the strenght/bestness/rightness of religions. Book miracles? The chram? The feeling? Why should only one religion be the right one? what if the actual god wanted to have many? Who are we, people, to know God? Etc, etc... etc?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

this reminds me of something i've wondered about - about what percentage of the teachings in the NT is actually jesus' words rather than what paul or others said about him?

In terms of books, 14,8%..

 

[snakelegs]

Now, I don't even know what crietria can be used to detrmine the strenght/bestness/rightness of religions. Book miracles? The chram? The feeling? Why should only one religion be the right one? what if the actual god wanted to have many? Who are we, people, to know God? Etc, etc... etc?

this is why some of us are agnostics.
personally, i find it quite ok to have questions without answers.

 

[snakelegs]

In terms of books, 14,8%..

i'm not sure if you are joking or being serious. jesus didn't write any of the books, did he?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

i'm not sure if you are joking or being serious. jesus didn't write any of the books, did he?

No, 4(gospels) : 27(books) = 0,148 = 14,8%

 

[MustafaMc]

Yes, Islam is submitting one's self to the will of God. And I agree that Jesus most certianly did. What I cannot agree is that Muhammad (I still wish peace to be upon him) in fact got the message right. When he says that that God's angel told him that Jesus never died on the cross, all I can conclude is that either Muhammad misheard or was listening to an angel who he thought was Jibreel, but really wasn't.

It is your choice to disbelieve the Quran and to hold on to your Christian faith; whereas, it is our choice to believe what the Quran says about the non-death of Jesus (as) as being true.

Indeed it was being willing to submit to God that led Jesus to the cross, to deny that is to deny that Jesus was submissive.

On this we agree: Jesus was submissive to the Will of God.

And though Jesus would not be born until generations later, I believe that the holy scriptures teach that Abraham and Moses longed for Jesus' day and were submissive to him as an act of faith. To say that they would not recognize Jesus as God is to say that they would not be submissive to God, and for Muslim today to deny that this is who Jesus is likewise is not living a life of submission to the one true God.

Totally lost me here. To paraphrase, "For Muslims to disbelieve that Jesus is God, is to not be submissive to the One God." :muddleheaHow can disbelieving in something that is directly contrary to the Oneness of God be an act of disobedience to Allah?

So, I guess it all depends not on how you define Islam (for we agree on its meaning) but on who it is that one submitts to. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Jesus none of them were submissive to God in the way that a modern day Muslim defines being submissive to Allah. If they were followers of Islam, then today's Muslim is not.

You are right that they did not pray 5X/day in Arabic according to the Sunnah of Muhammad (saaws), but the people that you listed submitted to the Will of Allah as it was revealed to them. As we submit to the Will of Allah as revealed in the Final Message to mankind, we become Muslims as they were during their time. The critical point is submission and obedience to the Will of Allah.

 

[snakelegs]

No, 4(gospels) : 27(books) = 0,148 = 14,8%

:muddlehea :hmm::uuh:
translation - i think i'll wait for grace seeker.

 

[Grace Seeker]

:muddlehea :hmm::uuh:
translation - i think i'll wait for grace seeker.

Only a very small portion of the New Testament are the actual words of Jesus.

Whatthepoint is right. There are 27 books in the NT. Of them 4 are called gospels. What some people mistake is to think that a gospel should be a biography of Jesus' life, or that it should be a record of Jesus' teachings. In reality neither was the purpose for writing any of the gospel accounts. If you want to try an interesting experiment, you can probably figure out for yourself what the purpse of a gospel is:

Take any one of the 4 gospels, and divide it into big broad units, like you were outlining it. What is the biggest single unit? I like to do this with the gospel of John in particular. John is 21 chapters long. It tells lots of stories about Jesus. But if you were to find where it begins to tell the story of his passion (the last week of his life on earth before his crucifixion) you will find that this starts at chapter 11. In other words, or half of the Gospel (11 of 21 chapters) is about just this one final week. While it isn't the same proportions in the other Gospels, even a cursory glace shows that they too give an inordinate amount of time to this short period of time in Jesus' life. In other words, it isn't his life and teachings that are the most important part of the story. Well, what is? Well, to me it seems obvious. What is most important to them is what they spend their time focusing on -- Jesus' death and resurrection. This is why Christians say that that more important than what Jesus said, is what Jesus did. And this is why that Paul claimed he preached nothing but Jesus, and him crucified. Because this was the most important part of the story, even before Paul became a Christian. To see that, all you have to do is look at the first sermon ever preached in the church, Peter's sermon on Pentecost, and one sees that Jesus' death was the climax of that sermon as well.

I'm not sure in terms of percentages, what the percentage of Jesus' words is to other people's. The largest number of books in the New Testament (13 out of 27) are the letters that Paul wrote to churches that he had visited, and people he had contact with.

We find Jesus either directly quoted or his words paraphrased in 8 different books. In addition to the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) there is also Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 John, and Revelation.

 

[snakelegs]

thanks for your answer - interesting!

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

... I am personally uncomfortable with the Catholic understanding of Mary and her place in the context of God and Christ.

If u believe Jesus (p) is God , then why u don't feel comfortable with the term ' Mother of God ' ? She indeed gave birth to Jesus (p) ....right ???


Verses we need specially for hereafter


"Behold! the angels said: 'O Mary!


God hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations.

O Mary! worship thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down.'"

(Quran 3:42-43).

 

[Grace Seeker]

Speaking not for Keltoi, but for myself alone. I can live with the term. But I wish that Catholics didn't use it, because I think it leads to other people misunderstanding and thinking that they are really talking about God having a mother as if a progenitor. Of course, God has no progenitor. But the term "Mother of God" sounds like one. I much prefer the more technical term "theoktos" meaning "God bearer", because Mary did carry Jesus around in the womb for 9 months and in that sense bore God. But God didn't need Aary to come into being, God already existed long before Mary and in fact created her, not the other way around. And I think that the term "Mother of God" leads to confusion on that point.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

....because Mary did carry Jesus around in the womb for 9 months and in that sense bore God.int.

will u explain a little more , pl ? It's ok to say Mother Mary (p) bore God but it's confusing to say , she gave birth to God ?


Is it ok to say she gave birth to human form of God ?


Verses we need specially for hereafter



"And (remember) she who guarded her chastity. We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples (21:91).


Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him.


His mother was a woman of truth.


They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75).

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam/peace;

will u explain a little more , pl ? It's ok to say Mother Mary (p) bore God but it's confusing to say , she gave birth to God ?


Is it ok to say she gave birth to human form of God ?

It's just a personal thing. Since I know what they are "trying" to say, I can live with it. But so many others seem to read something different into what they are saying by using that term than what they really mean, I just wish that they would find a different way to say it. People end up reading something completely different than what the Catholics mean into it, and then you get statement like -- "Say...mother of God? This means God has grandfather and grandmother or...?" -- from people who don't even want to hear the answer to the question. Such question show that they not only don't understand, but the frequency with which they post them shows that they don't want to understand. It's not the Catholic's fault if people refuse to listen, but I just wish that the Catholics would find a different choice of words so that I didn't have to keep hearing the same question over and over again from people who just like to stir things up without really looking for understanding.


Yes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that Mary gave birth to God in human form. As long as you don't misunderstand that to imply that God was dependent on Mary for his existence. You might ask Jayda for more information on this, since she's Catholic and Catholics like to focus more on Mary than United Methodists like myself do.

 

[MadeenJibreel]

It's just a personal thing. Since I know what they are "trying" to say, I can live with it. But so many others seem to read something different into what they are saying by using that term than what they really mean, I just wish that they would find a different way to say it. People end up reading something completely different than what the Catholics mean into it, and then you get statement like -- "Say...mother of God? This means God has grandfather and grandmother or...?" -- from people who don't even want to hear the answer to the question. Such question show that they not only don't understand, but the frequency with which they post them shows that they don't want to understand. It's not the Catholic's fault if people refuse to listen, but I just wish that the Catholics would find a different choice of words so that I didn't have to keep hearing the same question over and over again from people who just like to stir things up without really looking for understanding.

Yes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that Mary gave birth to God in human form. As long as you don't misunderstand that to imply that God was dependent on Mary for his existence. You might ask Jayda for more information on this, since she's Catholic and Catholics like to focus more on Mary than United Methodists like myself do.

It's a valid question. Somebody comes to you and says, listen pal, I wanna become a Christian, but explain some thing to me before I do: Say...mother of God? What's all about that? God created Mary, yet Mary gave birth to God?

I do wanna hear the answer to all of those questions, yet you fail to provide them. All please give some more details on "God changing His form", which implies "God has a body", or "God is formed of elementary particles just like we, etc." Now that doesn't sound like God, Who created those very pieces.

PS That is...if my English is good enough for you to understand it?

 

[MadeenJibreel]

Or like this one: when Christians say: God is in us.
What do you mean by that? God is literally in bodies He created? In bodies who sin on a daily basis? I believe you will avoid these questions, just like the others you have no answer to.

 

[MustafaMc]

"Say...mother of God? This means God has grandfather and grandmother or...?"

...and how is this different from "Son of God"?

Yes, I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that Mary gave birth to God in human form. As long as you don't misunderstand that to imply that God was dependent on Mary for his existence.

Would Jesus have been born to "die on the cross" had there been no Mother Mary to give birth to him? What if both had died in childbirth? In what form was Jesus before he was born? Does he have the pre-birth form or the 30 year old human form as he now sits at the right hand of God?