Who is the founder of Christianity?

[malayloveislam]

Peace GS,

I had analyzed your post and you did your best in explaining about your religion to me. I am always not clear about Christians because there are so many groups in Christianity yet certain concepts seems like in Hinduism but not as clear as in Hinduism itself. I really appreciate your efforts. I would only like to present my personal view, nobody have to take them as arguments, I'm just discussing. Differences always can't be avoided and that is not wrong at all for me.

When I look at it there are some things that I think are significantly different: the view toward slavery, the roles of men and women, daily family life, the administration of the sacraments, the degrees of definition for ecclesiastical authority. Whole books are written on each of these things. But for all of the controversy one can stir up on any one of these topics, they are really miniscule compared to the big central tenents of the faith which I think have remained the same across the generations of time. The reason for both the changes and the things that have remained the same is, I believe, because a Christian (and therefore Christianity) is intended to be in the world and yet not of the world. So, just as Islam has evolved to accept the things of the world in having the call to prayer broadcast over loudspeaker, so the way the institution of the Church functions in today's society is different than it was in its inception. But I believe that our core beliefs are the same.

I do believe our core belief is the same, maybe the way of how Christians view the concept of G-d is not the same with us. We do not use any theology concept that divides G-d into other entity. He is solely Him. He can not be represented by any other creation because our basic Creed had taught us that Creator and creations are two different things. I understand after few struggles Christianity had undergo several changes and that must be happened due to the absence of Jesus (pbuh). About the concept of god-heads, it just takes us a simple mathematics:

One from three is three
1 x 3 = 3

Three from one is still three
3 x 1 = 3

While,
One from one will only be one
1 x 1 = 1

I'm not really good in maths and always fail my maths but this is not really difficult and really easy to understand.

Furthermore in our basic Creed, we know the role of the prophets, and the G-d messengers which also includes the person whose name is Jesus (pbuh). The prophets and G-d holy messengers are all bringing the same message of Tawheed (Oneness of G-d). Might be Jesus divinity in Christianity is a way to glorify and to respect him as Christians main prophet just like Moses (pbuh) is the great prophet of Judaism. But it happened to be into glorifying him as a god later.

We become Muslims because we believe in prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophethood. But we were taught not to deify him. We respect our prophet (pbuh) and following his tradition (sunnah) but we should only devote ourselves to G-d. There are certain concepts that I'm not clear about Christianity that made me ask questions. I'm sincerely have no intention to defame Christians nor offending Christian friends.

The definition of Nubuwwah (prophethood) in Islam

Nabi (prophet): a man revealed by G-d with revelation but he only have the responsibility to teach the revelation to his family, relatives, and his household.

Rasul (G-d messenger): a man which is also a prophet, who was given the responsibility (annointed by G-d) to spread the message of G-d and the revelation to the whole human-being in a certain period. As for prophet Muhammad (pbuh), his revelation is valid until the doom's day.

The belief in Nabi (prophet) and Rasul (G-d messenger)

This is the third article of Muslim faith in the 6 Basic Creeds.

The verse

128. Now hath come to you a messenger from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should perish: ardently anxious is he over you: to the Believers is he most kind and merciful.

129. But if they turn away, Say (o Muhammad): "G-d sufficeth me: there is no god but He: On Him is my trust, - He the Lord of the Throne (of Glory) Supreme!"

(Translation of Surah at-Taubah (no. 9) by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

Characteristics of a Rasul (G-d messenger)

There are 4 characteristics that must be possessed by a Rasul. I had stated in my previous posts with normal human qualities like eat, drink, going to toilet, married, and etc. And other 4 characteristics that are impossible to be possessed by a Rasul.

The reasons why prophets and messengers being sent

1. Strengthening the proves and showing humans the existance of G-d
2. Showing the importance of human in the earth as the caliph (administrator)
3. Reminding human to remain on the straight path
4. As a messenger, the prophets told human about metaphysical things through revelation.

The matters that is in opposite with the concept of an-Nubuwwah (prophethood)

1. Deification of creations, prophets and G-d messengers are all human.
2. Claimants that the soul of prophets and G-d messengers may help in spiritual matters.

Concerning the quotes from Thomas about his wailing saying "my G-d and my Lord". I always come across this kind of phrases in Bible, they do not have the bracket, to show to whom the phrase is addressed to, as we know Bible had been translated into many languages from Aramaic or Greek if they are the Epistles. I think this phrase can still be interpreted. We Muslims always differentiate G-d (Alla) and Lord (Saidi, Sidi). G-d is only for Him, Lord can also being used in addressing humans. When you say a Land Lord, it means a man who possess a piece of land or any property on the land. It also means the Possessor of the whole Earth (G-d). So, it depends on which meanings you wanted to accept. If we interprete Surah al-Ikhlas according to the interpretation that we wanted to accept, it would be, Qul huwallahu Ahad (Say, that he is G-d the one). It means what? Say to whom? Is it means Muhammad (pbuh) is a god? That is why we have strict interpretation science for Quran.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I'll just respond to this one portion of your post for the moment.

About the concept of god-heads, it just takes us a simple mathematics:

One from three is three
1 x 3 = 3

Three from one is still three
3 x 1 = 3

While,
One from one will only be one
1 x 1 = 1

I'm not really good in maths and always fail my maths but this is not really difficult and really easy to understand.

I agree with your math. What I don't agree with is that your math correctly illustrates Christianity. 1 X 3 is a statement saying that you have one three different times. Multiplication is just a fast way of adding. So 1 +1 +1 = 1 X 3.

But Christianity doesn't say that we have one three different times. We categorically affirm that there is just 1 God, but that same one God can be found not three different times, but in three different ways. Whether we are talking about God the Father, or God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, we are not adding additional gods nor are we adding partners for God, but we are still talking about the one and the same God who created the universe and all that is in it, who was worshipped by our common spriitual father Abraham, who Jews believe spoke to Moses, who Muslims believe sent the Qur'an to Muhammad, and whom I believe that Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike all worship. In other words when Christians speak of the Trinity mathematically it is not 1 X 3, nor is it 3 X 1, nor is it even 1 + 1 + 1. The more correct way to express the Christian belief is to say that we have one God raised to the third power. Or, in the symbolic language of mathematics, we have 1 X 1 X 1, and that, as you know, is still just 1.

 

[i love allah]

I understand that you see present day Christianity as different from what you think that Jesus taught. But I don't understand why Paul gets charged with making that change and not Jesus' disciples? After all, Paul was originally a hater of Christianity as taught by the disicples and had to be converted to it. And the thing that he hated was that the disciples were lifting up Jesus as Lord and worshipping Jesus as they did God. It was the disciples, not Paul, who first claimed that salvation was found in no other name than Jesus, a clear violation of the the 1st Commandment as far as Paul was concerned. Paul only became a Christian when he was convinced that Christians were not breaking the first commandment.

salaam borthers and sisters
finally a post i can really answer
i am a former chritian, i reveted 4 months ago alhamdullihah!
so, if u actually read the new testement of the bible, you will surprisingly find out that NOT ONCE is there written jesus saying that he should be worshipped or prayed to!that all he was capable of doing was through the heavenly father,Allah.
after Jesus pbuh, ppl came up with what i can only compare to what islam calls hadith, ppl saying what they heard jesus say and do, some of it was correct, some tampered with and some completely made up.
then came paul, who didnt like the way the jewish scriptures described God(stahferallah!!!) saying that God was being described as too cruel.
so paul who was born about 2ooyrs after jesus pbuh death , took out what he didnt like, added what was interesting to him, diregarded some books and preferred others.
you should really watch this if you want more information. it is actually quit interesting, it helped me to know how to answer ppl who try to argue that the bible is the word of God. most christains dont even know who made the bible and how it was put together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PQ6_0gJUE

as for christianty, not even Jesus pbuh taught christanity, beacuse christians worship jesus and jesus phub never asked for such a thing. you should also watch this, one of ahmed deedat's debates

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PQ6_0gJUE

hope i helped
salaam
ommtalel is offline Report Post Reply With Quote

 

[Grace Seeker]

then came paul, who didnt like the way the jewish scriptures described God(stahferallah!!!) saying that God was being described as too cruel.
so paul who was born about 2ooyrs after jesus pbuh death , took out what he didnt like, added what was interesting to him, diregarded some books and preferred others.

I don't think this is a correct characterization of Paul at all. But I am willing to listen. I am particularly interested in how you have dated Paul. Please, show me evidence of even one of your assertions.

 

[Clover]

I have always thought that Christianity was founded by Jesus and his disciples.

 

[Follower]

Paul lived ca 5 - 67 AD.

 

[Zafran]

Paul lived ca 5 - 67 AD.

so thats when the potential founder was born.

 

[Follower]

I was correcting the statement - 'so paul who was born about 2ooyrs after jesus pbuh death'

 

[i love allah]

I understand that you see present day Christianity as different from what you think that Jesus taught. But I don't understand why Paul gets charged with making that change and not Jesus' disciples? After all, Paul was originally a hater of Christianity as taught by the disicples and had to be converted to it. And the thing that he hated was that the disciples were lifting up Jesus as Lord and worshipping Jesus as they did God. It was the disciples, not Paul, who first claimed that salvation was found in no other name than Jesus, a clear violation of the the 1st Commandment as far as Paul was concerned. Paul only became a Christian when he was convinced that Christians were not breaking the first commandment.

The reason we know it wasn't the disciples who made the change is what God says in 3:52-53, "When Jesus felt rejection from them (the Jews), he said, 'Who are my supporters for God?' The disciples said, 'We are the supporters of God. We believe in God. Bear witness that we are Muslims. Our Lord, we have believed in what You sent down and followed the Messenger. Register us among the witnesses."

It was the disciples and their followers who kept struggling to keep the faith pure and they were thrown in pits of fire and fed to lions for their effort. May God accept their sacrifice and reward them handsomely for it.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Thank-you for an a-ha moment.

If I understand you correctly, since the Qur'an reports that the disciples asked to be registered among the witness for the events as the Qur'an presents them, then if any other source of writing suggests that the disciples were doing something different that what the Qur'an says, those other sources (be they the Bible, contemporary historians, or writings of the disciples themselves) must by definition be wrong as a result of some type of corruption: the altering of manuscripts, the works being forgeries, using/creating fictious historical accounts or some other way in which error is introduced to them.

Do I understand the essence of what you are saying?


And if the disciples were true followers of Jesus and the NT record substantially disputes what is in the Qur'an, then since the disciples didn't fall away from sharing the message that the Qur'an presents Jesus as bringing, the next most logical person to have been able to make such a significant change in Jesus' teaching becomes Paul -- especially since about half of the NT is purported to have been written by him.

 

[Follower]

Paul was alive during Jesus' time and presecuting the Christians.
Acts 7
54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 8
1And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

Amazing that GOD would use Paul to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.

 

[YusufNoor]

Thank-you for an a-ha moment.

If I understand you correctly, since the Qur'an reports that the disciples asked to be registered among the witness for the events as the Qur'an presents them, then if any other source of writing suggests that the disciples were doing something different that what the Qur'an says, those other sources (be they the Bible, contemporary historians, or writings of the disciples themselves) must by definition be wrong as a result of some type of corruption: the altering of manuscripts, the works being forgeries, using/creating fictious historical accounts or some other way in which error is introduced to them.

Do I understand the essence of what you are saying?


And if the disciples were true followers of Jesus and the NT record substantially disputes what is in the Qur'an, then since the disciples didn't fall away from sharing the message that the Qur'an presents Jesus as bringing, the next most logical person to have been able to make such a significant change in Jesus' teaching becomes Paul -- especially since about half of the NT is purported to have been written by him.

what half of the NT has Paul written?

 

[Grace Seeker]

what half of the NT has Paul written?

Not according to most of those "scholars" you like to quote from. They would probably tell you that the majority of letters attributed to Paul were supposedly written by someone else.

 

[suffiyan007]

Paul absolutely...because Jesus is the tauhid religion bringing from Adam A.S...same religion that Maryam daughter of omran(imran),Zulaika and zakaria....jesus is the same religion of Bani ishmael(ismail). and ibrahim....Church and song hymns and statue all is made by paul...all is the statue a is created by people mind to craft the statue....how do we know the look of Jesus,mary and etc?...only Gods know only the people of the prophets centuries knew how they look...prophets face is like a light...no one can know the look...even in the islamic Quran or Books never draw a single potrayed of the prophets.

 

[YusufNoor]

Originally Posted by YusufNoor View Post
what half of the NT has Paul written?

Not according to most of those "scholars" you like to quote from. They would probably tell you that the majority of letters attributed to Paul were supposedly written by someone else.

tsk tsk tsk, you can't even say what books, eh?

well, i thought that you were here to answer questions about your religion. you seem to have lost the ability to answer questions directly!

you're none to keen on discussing your Holy Book. why? are you ashamed of it or do you lack the knowledge?

what then, is your purpose here?

 

[Grace Seeker]

tsk tsk tsk, you can't even say what books, eh?

well, i thought that you were here to answer questions about your religion. you seem to have lost the ability to answer questions directly!

you're none to keen on discussing your Holy Book. why? are you ashamed of it or do you lack the knowledge?

what then, is your purpose here?

I thought you were making a sarcastic comment. Was I supposed to believe that one who reads Christian "scholars" in order to debate others has a serious question about something as elemental as what books Paul has written?

For those who don't know, and for Yusuf who does but appears to like to play games, the accepted books of the New Testament, with those purported to have been written by Paul in CAPITAL LETTERS, are:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
ROMANS
1 & 2 CORINTHIANS
GALATIANS
EPHESIANS
PHILIPPIANS
COLOSSIANS
1 & 2 THESSALONIANS
1 & 2 TIMOTHY
TITUS
PHILEMON
Hebrews
James
1 & 2 Peter
1, 2, & 3 John
Jude
Revelation

(For Zafran, who seemed to not know this in another thread, it is the first four books, AND ONLY the first four books -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- which are termed Gospels by Christians. None of the books on this list are accepted by Jews; they do not recognize a New Testament and an Old Testament, but only consider what Christians call the Old Testament to be scripture.)

 

[suffiyan007]

Thus, even the book of Gospels of jesus that u stated, but your information...
that inside it stated that Jesus speaks about his death...and die for the world,to takes away the sins of the world...why should a prophet should die for the people,but the people doesn't pray to god for god forgiveness.and why christian should go to the father(priest)for confession to seek him for forgiveness and where should the pope and priesthood...so they just pray to God...for confession is that right...?a priest should teach the follower of christianity should follow what's he does....people should pray to God...for forgiveness.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Thus, even the book of Gospels of jesus that u stated, but your information...

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[YusufNoor]

I thought you were making a sarcastic comment. Was I supposed to believe that one who reads Christian "scholars" in order to debate others

so now you think that you know what my motivation is in everything that i do? are you equating yourself with God now?

has a serious question about something as elemental as what books Paul has written?

some of those scholars have different opinions on who wrote the books assigned to Paul, you think that is some kind of game in determining what someone else's opinion is?

For those who don't know, and for Yusuf who does but appears to like to play games,

i would rather note that you play games rather than answer simple questions, you hem and haw and avoid answering at all costs! rather than pretend that you have the power of God and that you know everything, why can't you just answer questions? just because you don't like what some scholars may say, the HONEST ones discuss the defects contained in old papyri and codicii as well as in the assigning of authorship to various scripture.

the accepted books of the New Testament, with those purported to have been written by Paul in CAPITAL LETTERS, are:

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
ROMANS
1 & 2 CORINTHIANS
GALATIANS
EPHESIANS
PHILIPPIANS
COLOSSIANS
1 & 2 THESSALONIANS
1 & 2 TIMOTHY
TITUS
PHILEMON
Hebrews
James
1 & 2 Peter
1, 2, & 3 John
Jude
Revelation

(For Zafran, who seemed to not know this in another thread, it is the first four books -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- which are termed Gospels by Christians. None of the books on this list are accepted by Jews; they do not recognize a New Testament and an Old Testament, but only consider what Christians call the Old Testament to be scripture.)

perhaps if you had more faith in your "books" and your religion, you could just answer questions instead of playing "avoidance" for so long. you didn't create, nor did i, the problems that exist with Christian Scripture, BUT they are there. IF you take the point of view that you will discuss/reveal only certain elements about "The Bible", then you are acting alot like the Roman Catholic Church! a true Protestant, even if Anglican, should cheerfully discuss these aspect of Scripture AND they shouldn't shake your faith.

if you think that you need to hide the flaws in order to defend your faith, then your faith is in sorry shape and you should avoid leading others until you square your faith with yourself 1st!

that being said, when did those books that you cal "the accepted books of then New Testament" become THE accepted books?

 

[Grace Seeker]

perhaps if you had more faith in your "books" and your religion, you could just answer questions instead of playing "avoidance" for so long. you didn't create, nor did i, the problems that exist with Christian Scripture, BUT they are there. IF you take the point of view that you will discuss/reveal only certain elements about "The Bible", then you are acting alot like the Roman Catholic Church! a true Protestant, even if Anglican, should cheerfully discuss these aspect of Scripture AND they shouldn't shake your faith.

if you think that you need to hide the flaws in order to defend your faith, then your faith is in sorry shape and you should avoid leading others until you square your faith with yourself 1st!

Yusuf, you assume too much.


I'm not avoiding any questions because of fear that I can't talk about them. But I do discriminate in my use of time. When you ask questions that I am well aware that you know the answer to, I don't take your questions seriously. When I have limited time to respond, questions that I don't think are serious questions go to the bottom of the priority list. This is not to say that you don't have reasons for your questions, perhaps to draw something out or make a point in a particular way, but I have to make decisions as to what to take time on or not take time on independent of your agenda.

I too am well aware of the process by which the Bible that is in use today evolved over time. I don't have all of the answers to when this or that book was accepted or rejected memorized and don't always have the time to research answers to questions that I don't see as relevant to what I was asking, especially when they are as easily known to you as they are to me.

Normally, I would be glad to join in your games, but this summer, at this particular point of time in my life I just don't have time. So, without dates I've already stipulated that the NT was complied over time with varying books seen as being canonical at one point in history. That list would change over history till it was eventually settled on by general consensus, a consensus that was latter conferred as established by the church at a church council.

But for precises books and dates you can look them up as well and quickly as I. I have no idea how this relates to determining who is the founder of Christianity.