Who is the founder of Christianity?

Who was the founder of Christianity?


  • Total voters
    0
Salam and Peace,

We just need to read and understand to compare. Talking simply won't change anything. Saying that Quran is altered won't change anything. Read the texts any translation if you can't read it in the original tongue or can't even understand. Put them in a thread different than this and we will see what is different in the version of Quran used by Muslims around the world. We have Muslims from many region here. From Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australasia, and etc. We also have Muslims from many countries and speaking different languages. See what they will have to say. But make sure it is in different and suitable thread.

Indeed.. I have provided quite an expansive textual evidence with original manuscript. But I believe that as you say, folks don't want to read or spend the time because they are more comfortable in their beliefs..

I think the divergence between us, is that you write with hopes that folks can compare and come to the light, whereas I write to refute allegations leveled against Islam in the process strongly contrasting the differences between those two theologies...

I have come to believe after many yrs of blogging, is that you can tell right off the bat who has genuine interest in learning and who is here to jest and mock..
The prophet SAW described in a hadith that I can't currently locate, that some kuffars are like cedar trees, their beliefs are unyielding, the only way for them to change is to have their beliefs uprooted.

and Allah swt knows best

nonetheless for what it is worth, I actually learnt quite a bit from you :smile:

:w:
 
Salam and Peace,

We just need to read and understand to compare. Talking simply won't change anything. Saying that Quran is altered won't change anything. Read the texts any translation if you can't read it in the original tongue or can't even understand. Put them in a thread different than this and we will see what is different in the version of Quran used by Muslims around the world. We have Muslims from many region here. From Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Australasia, and etc. We also have Muslims from many countries and speaking different languages. See what they will have to say. But make sure it is in different and suitable thread.

Im not saying theirs different versions, Im saying theirs a possibility that it has been altered since the begining because of time, time alters Documents wether they are written on Bones, animal skin,rocks whatever. time= altered documents. whatever I write today, in 2000 years theirs strong chances it wont be the same thing at all! thats it! end of story. Period.
 
:sl:

you write such excellent posts and I really enjoy your far eastern insights.. Indeed I quoted another fellow today similarities between Hinduism and Christianity given the concept of reincarnation as pertains to Jesus (PBUH) theophany and anthropomorphism of God relating to so many Pagan ideals and rituals..

I don't think your posts get the attention they deserve, because amongst other things you are actually quite meticulous, learned and pay attention to details, which is something not many folks look for when they join a forum.

wanted to let you know, you are doing a good job Masha'Allah, and I am learning quite a bit from you..

:w:

:sl:

It is OK sister, I don't really care about others attention. They will think themselves if they care to read. I belief that not many people know about the Greek Conquest over ancient India before Christ Era. How could the Pagan teaching arrived in Greek if not from India? And the Greeks had also conquered the land of Palestine where the person whose name is Jesus (pbuh) was born. Hinduism have different level of religions in it. You can see ideologies in it without have to revise the Roman or Greek religions. We also need History of Human Civilization, not merely Modern Science to check our faiths. Science merely means knowledge. Any field of knowledge is useful for us to make comparison and to think.

British had never succeeded in Evangelizing to Muslims in my country. Even the earlier Portuguese too can only evangelize to small portion of people who had not read the enlightening Quran. Once Muslim missionaries came in slow flow, local people quickly embracing Islam without any battle (specifically in my area, other area had different experiences). Our region in SEA was known as the Lands Conquered by Hindu gods in ancient time.
 
:sl:

It is OK sister, I don't really care about others attention. They will think themselves if they care to read. I belief that not many people know about the Greek Conquest over ancient India before Christ Era. How could the Pagan teaching arrived in Greek if not from India? And the Greeks had also conquered the land of Palestine where the person whose name is Jesus (pbuh) was born. Hinduism have different level of religions in it. You can see ideologies in it without have to revise the Roman or Greek religions. We also need History of Human Civilization, not merely Modern Science to check our faiths. Science merely means knowledge. Any field of knowledge is useful for us to make comparison and to think.

British had never succeeded in Evangelizing to Muslims in my country. Even the earlier Portuguese too can only evangelize to small portion of people who had not read the enlightening Quran. Once Muslim missionaries came in slow flow, local people quickly embracing Islam without any battle (specifically in my area, other area had different experiences). Our region in SEA was known as the Lands Conquered by Hindu gods in ancient time.


:sl:

well you are doing a good deed no matter how you slice it and we are certainly glad to have you aboard..
incidentally, have you read the book 'The history Of Quranic text' by Dr. M.M Al-Azami?

it might be of great interest to you, as it levels some of the arguments orientalists have about the lack of christian presence in Arabia which made it allegedly easier for Islam to infiltrate..
He deals quite well with it from a historical perspective as well -- given the two christian and few Jewish tribes in Makkah....

If you haven't already read it, I think you might deeply enjoy it.. I am only a quarter of the way done, and I find it to be well sourced and excellent..

I have to be getting to bed now because I need to be up early, but thank you so much for an excellent read.

waslaam 3lykoum wr wb
 
Im not saying theirs different versions, Im saying theirs a possibility that it has been altered since the beginning because of time, time alters Documents wether they are written on Bones, animal skin,rocks whatever. time= altered documents. whatever I write today, in 2000 years theirs strong chances it wont be the same thing at all! thats it! end of story. Period.

Peace,

Then you are saying the person Muhammad (pbuh) altered the Quran? I guess that I don't have to lecture to you about the qualities possessed by prophets and holy messengers of G-d in Islam. Specifically specify in what manner the possibilities of the documents being altered through out the time? Do you read the History on the Compilation of Quran?

In prophet (pbuh) time people are reciting the verses, it is not a written document only on sanctified bones, palm leaves, clothes, and etc. I am now in the process of memorizing Quranic verses. Say if I have bad intention to use it for my own benefits and bending the verses, can't others who did the same with pure heart rejecting it and specify it with the standard manuscript that they have? Also can't others giving the specified and standard interpretation since the time of prophet (pbuh) to clear up my mis-uttering of the verses made by myself? Then care to compare them with the History of Bible (including Torah).

Or you are saying that prophets' companions had altered the documents? We have their life documents, their life were seen not only by people around them but also Muslims of different backgrounds. Even if you have experience dealing with faithful Muslims, what qualities do you see in them? All of these related to our article of faith. Check back the History of Islamic development from the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) until today.

We had provided the information in this large spaces of forum. You just have to care to click on them and revise them one by one. You won't be influenced by others if you have your own strong faith and it suppose to be in conjunction with your Bible verses, "do not believe in every spirit but you have to test them" (sorry I can't provide you which verse in the Bible, you must be proficient in your own scripture). What is the method to test the spirit??? Care to enlight us? What is the qualities of prophets and G-d messengers taught in Christianity? Our articles of Faith came from Holy Quran itself in the beginning chapters. They were concluded in the Hadiths which is the interpretation of the verses by the archangel Gabriel (pbuh).

We do not have Church Fathers in Islam to set a Dogma. We can gradually think ourselves through the knowledge we acquired. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is our prophet, not a Church Father. Who is the prophet of Christians because Jesus is G-d for you? He is not a prophet then. Must be other person holding the role of prophet. Yet we won't be afraid if we are confident that we are in the true side, there is a saying, "Courageous because we are in the True side". I do not say Muslims are true, or Christians are wrong, but when I see what Orientalists usually from Western countries with Imperialism power always trying to deflect everything that they heard from Muslim, also by asking questions instead of providing their own basis teachings. We are not afraid in the term providing information to others because the basic things in our religion is standard. Shiites only exist after Ali (G-d be please with him). Muslim who had the standard belief since our prophet (pbuh) time exist since today when I post this post.

Why can't Christians specify what is their teaching in more specific terms? We want to see clearly what exactly is their view of G-d. Whether He is One, Three, One in Three, Three in One, Divisible or not? He antromorph himself into creatures? He is a creature or a G-d? What is Christians view about prophets? Are the Church Fathers their prophets even the previous prophets like Abraham (pbuh), Moses (pbuh), Noah (pbuh), David (pbuh), and others are not as correct as them in viewing G-d since Church fathers too got the revelation from G-d (Jesus??)? I can't even understand Christians thinking about G-d divinity or who is exactly the G-d post-Nicean councils although I know certain basic things about them. I can understand Hindus more than Christians today.

With Love
 
Last edited:
I dont care to hear about how much superior you think you and your religion is, I just stated that troughout the ages documents become unreliable,thats it. And you can hardly use ''Oral tradition'' to prove the quoran is reliable, ever played a game of telephone?

Just like I said, regardless of the fact that it is written on skin or bones or that it is said to be recited a certain numbers of times a day or that it is said to be written by the time of the prophet, time= unreliable documents, this goes for the Bible AND the quran, thats all. we cant be 100% sure that the text is reliable, pherhaps it is ''more'' reliable than the bible to some extent but thats all, Its pretty obvious according to me, a Doctor should understand this.

Regards.

Seems like the truth is causing a bit of frustration for you, Maybe you should allow for your heart and mind to slowly open and turn that frustration into understanding or atleast acceptance.
 
Peace,

Then you are saying the person Muhammad (pbuh) altered the Quran? I guess that I don't have to lecture to you about the qualities possessed by prophets and holy messengers of G-d in Islam.

Or you are saying that prophets' companions had altered the documents? We have their life documents, their life were seen not only by people around them but also Muslims of different backgrounds. Check back the History of Islamic development from the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) until today.

We had provided the information in this large spaces of forum. You just have to care to click on them and revise them one by one. You won't be influenced by others if you have your own strong faith and it suppose to be in conjunction with your Bible verses, "do not believe in every spirit but you have to test them" (sorry I can't provide you which verse in the Bible, you must be proficient in your own scripture). What is the method to test the spirit??? Care to enlight us? What is the qualities of prophets and G-d messengers taught in Christianity? Our articles of Faith came from Holy Quran itself in the beginning chapters. They were concluded in the Hadiths which is the interpretation of the verses by the archangel Gabriel (pbuh).

We do not have Church Fathers in Islam to set a Dogma. We can gradually think ourselves through the knowledge we acquired. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is our prophet, not a Church Father. Who is the prophet of Christians because Jesus is G-d for you? He is not a prophet then. Must be other person holding the role of prophet.

With Love

Errr, this is sooo exasperating, I have neither the patience or the time to answer you, like I stated earlier these questionning about who is a prophet and what role did he have and if this is like ''this'' it cant be like ''that'' who did what, ''what was the color of Sauls shorts''

This is what I call washing the outside of the cup but not the inside, do you know what this means? these are all pointless debates about useless information,

This is what I think: Love! and do what you like! Love your enemy like thyself, do onto others what you want them to do to you. the rest is all technicalitys its pointless to focus on these technicalitys rather than on the Important values: Love, generosity, Pardonning one and other. The rest is POINTLESS! and frankly gives me a headache.... Thats why Il never be a muslim, to much cup washing.

Seems like the truth is causing a bit of frustration for you, Maybe you should allow for your heart and mind to slowly open and turn that frustration into understanding or atleast acceptance.
What?? Im the one with a closed heart and mind?? allow me another chuckle aha! aha! :D I have a very open mind, and If you look at some of my recent posts you will find this to be so.

With love my friend.
 
Last edited:
Errr, this is sooo exasperating, I have neither the patience or the time to answer you, like I stated earlier these questionning about who is a prophet and what role did he have and if this is like ''this'' it cant be like ''that'' who did what, ''what was the color of Sauls shorts''

This is what I call washing the outside of the cup but not the inside, do you know what this means? these are all pointless debates about useless information,

This is what I think: Love! and do what you like! Love your enemy like thyself, do onto others what you want them to do to you. the rest is all techicalitys Focusing on these technicalitys rather than on the Important values: Love, generosity, Pardonning one and other. The rest is POINTLESS! and frankly gives me a headache.... Thats why Il never be a muslim, to much cup washing.

With love my friend.

We don't follow what you think And thats what makes the difference between muslims and non muslims. We don't follow the conveniances which are adapted by the way Man or our own desires wants us to live. We follow the law of our creator which advised and teaches us the best way to live through life. We follow the values which are installed is us from our creator, Which is the best of teachers.
 
We don't follow what you think And thats what makes the difference between muslims and non muslims. We don't follow the conveniances which are adapted by the way Man or our own desires wants us to live. We follow the law of our creator which advised and teaches us the best way to live through life. We follow the values which are installed is us from our creator, Which is the best of teachers.

Why fight natural desires? if god didnt will them he wouldnt of allowed them. they are part of the human instinct because we are in the same class as the beasts, here is a quote that is quite a propos: ''For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.'' Albert camus Do you understand what this means? try making a little effort.
 
Why fight natural desires? if god didnt will them he wouldnt of allowed them. they are part of the human instinct because we are in the same class as the beasts, here is a quote that is quite a propos: ''For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.'' Albert camus Do you understand what this means? try making a little effort.

I'll be sure to try my best. Thanks for the advice. Your full of wisdom and knowledge.
 
Errr, this is sooo exasperating, I have neither the patience or the time to answer you, like I stated earlier these questionning about who is a prophet and what role did he have and if this is like ''this'' it cant be like ''that'' who did what, ''what was the color of Sauls shorts''

This is what I call washing the outside of the cup but not the inside, do you know what this means? these are all pointless debates about useless information,

This is what I think: Love! and do what you like! Love your enemy like thyself, do onto others what you want them to do to you. the rest is all technicalitys its pointless to focus on these technicalitys rather than on the Important values: Love, generosity, Pardonning one and other. The rest is POINTLESS! and frankly gives me a headache.... Thats why Il never be a muslim, to much cup washing.

With love my friend.

Peace

What is so exasperating? Why is it bothering you to join the debate since my role in here is not to debate. I believe other respective Muslim brothers and sisters are not here to debate but to discuss. If they blindly talk about anything, why did they stated the sources? It is different from non-Muslims, when talking about Islam they blindly attack it and only give incomplete quote or stating only the quotes from the sources that they said from Muslim source.

....Your full of wisdom and knowledge.

I am not the type of person who argue or love to argue, South East Asians are peaceful people, it is still like this even when we embrace Islam from our past Hindu-Buddhism background. I never heard South East Asians conquering other nation outside this region but I had heard and listen to what my elders said about Westerner Imperialists had done in our region which they claim as the act of enlightening the world into civilization. What is this act of enlightening the world with civilization means? Isn't it also can be interpreted as arrogance when you know nothing about a certain people or region background and quickly judging it as uncivilized? This one is the quote from French Imperialist when they colonized Indo-China in South East Asia. British did the same when they had sparked shoes war with the Burmese Kingship after the British emissary refuse to take off his shoes when entering Burmese King palace. Check them in British and French History or maybe they had write it in different way.

That is why I'm asking you to specify what exactly do you belief and asking you to provide information of Christianity side for you, me and others to compare. Who knows it might help us to understand and being fair to Christians. We still wanted to be fair unlike George Sale, and that Italian, Ludovic Marraci... I can't remember his name who presented the Vatican his translation of Quran or others who wrote their Quranic translation, claiming that it is Quran itself and quickly making quick assumption and negative comments on others and then blindly followed by persons who did not read the Arabic manuscript themselves.

Yes, I can say that those values of Love, Pardoning, and others not only exist in Christianity, but also in Islam and other religions like Hinduism. Bhakta Hinduism of Vaishnavaite wing says that G-d is Love, represented by god Vishnu with his 10 avataras (incarnations), He preserves, He nurtures love in His devotee. He visits humans and incarnating in those forms in certain Yugas (Eras). His incarnation came into the world in the form of Krishna, Rama, Buddha, and others. Krishna, Rama, and Buddha were all legendary figures. I do not say that they are not exist, they exist and they are just human-being but deified as G-d Himself. I do not mean to promote pluralism here, and I am strongly a practicing Muslim but since you had focused over love so here it comes. As what I had stated in the "test each spirit..." verse, I also mean that you must hold strong with the faith that you are confident as True. Do you see any Christian saying this to Muslims? I still can't see any. But when we say something like this, you people will take it as in the meaning of a loser and shaking in faith while we are certain about our Creed.

This is what I call washing the outside of the cup but not the inside, do you know what this means?

Then wash both inside and outside the cup.

......to much cup washing

Then don't wash the cup at all, easy isn't it?

You do not have to embrace Islam, neither do I or others. It is Him who Guides, not any other person. He will not be the loser in the end if I am wrong or you are wrong. Neither do it gives any gain to Him if you are right or I am right as He will still remain as He is forever :D.

With Love
 
Last edited:
Why fight natural desires? if god didnt will them he wouldnt of allowed them. they are part of the human instinct because we are in the same class as the beasts, here is a quote that is quite a propos: ''For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.'' Albert camus Do you understand what this means? try making a little effort.

Same class as the beast but with soul. Do you understand what soul means? I think that it is the ability to think, if I'm not wrong, or maybe others have some other views. Animals only acting with instinct, but not with soul which consists of thinking process. Human have soul and also instinct, so they think and also have bestial characteristic which is guided by religion laws. You still need law, unless if you don't really care people stealing your car, or changing the grant of your house into their name without your consent, killing your lovely pets without any good reason, or raping your relatives in front of your eyes, having sex on the middle on the road, and others.

Do you see any monkey producing philosophies like Humans? If quoting Darwin's theory. Those who produced philosophies are like Socrates and Plato as examples. Are they too monkeys? What monkeys had produced philosophy? If they had produced philosophies, their name must be carved in history whether it is underground (might be hidden) or in obvious and that must be an amazing achievement.

What do you see as opposing natural instincts? It is broad and may be subjective, state it here, no arguments. Only discussion unless if you love to debate. No wrong and no right if it is a discussion :smile:.

With Love and Best Regards
 
Last edited:
Peace

Talking about revelation, it is related to a religion, and it also reminds me of philosophy. Philosophy has also something to do with languages. Language is the medium to utter a philosophy or to speak ones mind and thinking. Philosophy is just a thinking sparked in human mind while a Religion is revealed because it consists of the Law of Life (Nature). There must be G-d in a religion. A philosophy do not needs G-d. Philosophy came from inspiration, it is different from Revelation. In Arabic, Ilham means inspiration. But Revelation is Wahyu. Both are with terminological meanings and of course they are different.

In Islam, Quran was revealed in Arabic for us to think. People might think that Arabs are low-creatures and uncivilized but when you read back the history of Mesopotamian, Arabs are actually apart of Mesopotamian civilization. Only after prophet Ishmael (pbuh) had passed away they gradually becoming Pagans after Abdullah Ben Luhaiy had brought Baal idol from the land of Phonecians and Arabs fallen in the Ages of Darkness until prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had been sent as a prophet and His messenger to correct them back on the straight path (the Creed of One G-d of the time of prophet Abraham). Prophet Abraham (pbuh) had also posed questions not only to his idolater father (Terah, Aazar, or whatever name he is referred to), his idolater community, and the Babylonian King but he also had asked himself the questions which one is G-d until G-d Himself guided him and revealed to him the revelation that He wishes prophet Abraham (pbuh) to know.

Hebrew name only sparked as a dialect of Mesopotamian civilization during the time of Joseph (pbuh). Where is the civilization first discovered by the Academicians? What is this has to do with Arabic? This is how we think, by posing sensible questions. Or maybe it is subjective on how we think? Everything started from Listening, Recitation, Memorization, Encoding, Reading, and Thinking thus sparked Understanding. There are Wisdom in G-d acts, He is boundless unlike creatures.

Peace and Love to all fellow humans
 
Last edited:
:sl:

well you are doing a good deed no matter how you slice it and we are certainly glad to have you aboard..
incidentally, have you read the book 'The history Of Quranic text' by Dr. M.M Al-Azami?

it might be of great interest to you, as it levels some of the arguments orientalists have about the lack of christian presence in Arabia which made it allegedly easier for Islam to infiltrate..
He deals quite well with it from a historical perspective as well -- given the two christian and few Jewish tribes in Makkah....

If you haven't already read it, I think you might deeply enjoy it.. I am only a quarter of the way done, and I find it to be well sourced and excellent..

I have to be getting to bed now because I need to be up early, but thank you so much for an excellent read.

waslaam 3lykoum wr wb

:sl:

I had never yet encounter the book but I have heard the name of the book writer, he is quite famous. I would love to read it and I will try to find them in the libraries, or if can't i'll just buy it online :D.

Every people have their own ways in dealing with questions whether it is in the intention to seek knowledge or in other intentions. Do not have to care about what others think because they never think too about what they had done to others. I also had read Ahmad Deedat (may G-d bless his soul) was mocked by the Catholic Priest Candidates from a Seminary when he worked as a shop keeper in South Africa that makes him open up the "Bible" himself and counter back. If the priests did not mock him, will he counter attack back or care to open up the "Bible"? Of course this is also in G-d Divine destiny.

It is not wrong when we defend ourselves. We will be questioned back in front of G-d on the reason why we did not defend ourselves while we are living? I am also getting knowledge from your posts and Subhanallah I get it even more than when I ask Christians of several different sects in real life. That is why I am posing the questions on what is their basis Creed, not to mock them as I wanted to know from which sources they get things related to their Creed including the Revelation. Are they believing Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet too or just a G-d because I am still confuse till now. I can understand Hinduism better but not Christian. Like a member and the guest of this forum said, it always giving me headache because the Creed is also related to Revelation :uhwhat.

Christians or Jews might be puzzled that Muslims are actually very faithful even it is haram (prohibited by G-d) to insult holy prophets in any form such as false allegations to them. We believe in the prophets are all bringing the same message of One G-d worth to be worshiped and it is one of our 6 basic Creeds. We believe in Abraham (pbuh), Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh) the same as we belief in Muhammad (pbuh). Muhammad (pbuh) is the last messenger for this age near dooms day. We do not know when is the dooms day and we cannot speculate when it is because it is only G-d knows, it is wrong to talk about the things that we do not have any certain knowledge. We always have to speak with the guidance of scripture (Quran), not merely talking without any basis.

Muslims are actually peaceful people but many had deceived them with different intentions which are only known to them. They try to use swords but it can't change anything, bombs too won't change anything, even when they try to use Academic approaches by questioning about the scriptures, and it bites them again when we ask them about how is their scripture being revealed and to whom it was revealed...

I also wanted to know from their sources not only from others as to be fair to them. As in Islam we have those sciences that deal with the Quranic knowledge. How about Christians? There are many non-Muslims trying to convert Muslims particularly in my country, and they only successful in deceiving those who had not read the Quran, the Hadiths and those who do not practicing the Orders of G-d such as Solah, Saum, etc with pure heart and also those who are not living according to the Sunnah of prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Islam is spread on the basis of One G-d, Sincerity, and the guidance from the Quran and Sunnah. My sister had just made a Hindu girl interested in Islam solely by displaying a constant akhlak (Moral), which is the practice of the second pillar of Islam, and now alhamdulillah she is a Muslim without we have to ask her questions about her Creed like I ask our Christian friends in the forum.

I do not also ask Christian friends to be Muslims, because being a Muslim needs sincerity, not only in the oral speech. It is not my power to open up others' heart because I am just His humble slave. I can only pray to Him to Guide our friends. G-d is the One who will open up the heart of others including myself as He is the One who is Powerful over everything. Even if G-d do not want me to revert than I might still be a Hindu-Buddhist in silence. My parents do not know about this. 5 years ago, I even had kept Hinduism and Buddhism Mantras with the Puranas that I read everyday under my bed beside reading the devotional stories of god and goddess in Hinduism and the tales of Buddha. Now I had return back to Islam and learning back everything about Islam from the root. I thank G-d and grateful to Him over my life, as He had saved me earlier before I die. It is not an easy process. It is G-d who Guides me to revert back to Islam where the thinking process and comparisons involved. G-d will also Guide others or simply letting them in Ignorance when they do not have any efforts to seek knowledge and think.

Answering back the allegations is also among the ways of introducing Islam, also providing information from quoted sources. You had actually done both, because you had stated the sources like what academicians and real scholars always do. I noticed that non-Muslims never did this to be fair to Islam. Islam won't being successful if spread through worldly materials or intention and sometimes defending ourselves is a measure to protect the Words of G-d (G-d's orders) which does not pollute the Love of G-d. Christians particularly form West with imperialism intention had converted many people in Indonesia, and the Philippines, but not of those who had already embraced Islam. Except those who are in the Philippines where the Northern Kingdom Manila was forced to embrace Christianity by the Spaniards (with Sword and Guns). We need to understand what is the spirit of Salam (Peace) in Islam, it is also a prayer not merely a greeting as Hi, Hello, How do you do. Peace is also related to Love. When Peace exists then Love may survive.

Peace and with Love
 
Last edited:
malayloveislam, pardon the interruption in your other conversation, but I thought I might go back to discuss one of your previous posts as it relates to the actual topic of this thread:
Through what I had read, I can conclude that Paul taught the dogma of Trinity and the Original Sin of human-being, which needs Salvation from the blood of god Jesus.

I cannot speculate about Jesus (pbuh) had taught this and I can not speculate that the 12 disciples also taught this because I did not finish yet reading the Roman Bible....

So, I would say that it is Paul, and later dogmatized by Church Fathers. Capital "F" because they are taking the role of G-d in setting legal Dogma for the faithful. In Roman Catholicism, Fathers can listen to the sin and forgiving the sins of sinful human-being after they say "repent!" and the person confirmed, "I repent". Thus, they may be G-d or maybe prophets sent revelation by G-d to inform that the sin of the person who admitting sins in the church. I might be wrong or might be right.

I agree that Paul did teach ideas that formed foundational ideas for what would latter be termed the Doctrine of the Trinity. You youself state that you cannot speculate about Jesus or his disciples as you haven't finished reading the Bible. So, that leaves us with two different issues to discuss.

1) Since Jesus and the disciples preceeded Paul and since Christianity already existed as a movement which Paul joined, how does one say that just because one is able to read some things in Paul that are Christian beliefs that Paul was the founder? How can an adherent joining a sect be credited with originating that same sect?

2) Without knowledge of what it is that the disciples taught before Paul you are ready to acribe Christianities foundations to Paul. Christianity is much more than just the teachings of Paul. It also in the whole idea of inclusiveness and universality for all people which Peter spoke to and which Jesus himself directed his disciples in practicing. It is a declaration of Jesus as Lord and God, a comment first found on the lips of Thomas and later affirmed by Peter. It is about proclaiming that forgiveness is found in Jesus Christ and that he functions as both high priest and sacrificial offering for those who place their faith in him, these ideas are found in the writings of John, Luke, and the anonymous author of Hebrews.

Plain and simple, if one only had the teachings of Paul on which to develop the Christian faith, then one would have a different Christianity today than we presently have. So, given that, how is it that you identify Paul as its founder?
 
Peace GS,

You may deal with my posts one by one, I have no problem with that since I need knowledge about Christians and trying to be fair and just.

What I mean that I can not speculate more is about god Jesus (according to Christians) but not prophet Jesus (pbuh) because we have his stories in al-Quran and we will only talk about him from the basis of our scripture which teaches us about the Creed of G-d Oneness, not from our own ideas.

1) Do you mean a sect of Judaism or Christianity? So Christianity primarily is not a religion but a sect? Religion is broader than a sect. Thus the Law of the religion must be in accordance with the Law of Moses (pbuh). Why is it Christianity today so different than the early teachings? How similar is the sect of the time Paul joined in than with today's?

2) What had the disciples taught? In which verse of Bible, Thomas recorded as reporting that Jesus declared himself the G-d? Mind sharing it with us? Together with your scholars' interpretation of the verses? Isn't that, it is reported Barnabas wrote in his Epistle, G-d need not blood as the offering? I can accept him as a high priest. But being a sacrifice for himself? How can he be the G-d and high priest in a time? Unless if he is the incarnation of G-d, again if I think like a Hindu who believe that G-d incarnates as certain human figures and if say I want to accept or still want to validate the idea of Trinity.

Barnabas reported:

What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord I am full of whole burnt-offerings, and the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and of goats desire not, not though ye should come to be seen of Me. or who required these things at your hands? Ye shall continue no more to tread My court. If ye bring fine flour, it is in vain; incense is an abomination to Me; your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with.

(Barnabas 2: 6)

(Translation of the Epistle of Barnabas by J. B. Lightfoot)

I had actually read something about how Paul and Barnabas went on a journey to the land of the Greeks but I can't remember every detail and it is not good for me to just tell what I can't properly recall as not to make false allegations to others. It is said that Paul had taught the Greeks about G-d but using their understanding of Pagan gods and incarnations. He might be teaching about One G-d but he used an inappropriate method. The Goal does not validate the Method.
 
Same class as the beast but with soul

I dare you to proove the existence of the soul, and most things youve stated are from a religious point of view, you said religious law prevents people from ahving sex in the street? we dont need religion to prevent that, law, and social norms do that job perfectly,again most of the things you have stated are from your own doctrine but do not rest on facts.

And please dont hijack the topic to turn it into some sort of a praising between you and gossamer sky.

I didnt get the whole thing about ''monkeys producing philosophy like darwin plato and socrate'' I suggest you go read a few books on the philosophers you mentionned, Id also suggest you let go some of the poetic ''tournures de phrases'' you use and correct the fact your oppinions rest entirely on your beleifs whilst a casual walk trough a mental asylum shows that beleifs don't prove anything.

Regards
 
I do not have to prove anything. It won't change anything. I may not read those philosophy books as they are not prominent in my area although I had learned about them in Mantiq. I had read the books of Buddhism which believe not in G-d as responsible but rather self-enlightening. I also had read Purannas, Gitas, and Shruti literature. Thanks for the reminder, I will try to find those books and read all about them. I hope you also do the same instead of attacking others when you can't provide the answers.

I had already stated philosophy and Religion is two different things. Prove to me that Soul is not exist with statments because yes, we can't find where is the location of Soul in our body. How do you define the Soul? Is it merely breath? Not the ability to think? Yes, every creature have breath but only human thinks. We have brain and it is specified in Biology as the place where thinking process works. The bloods pumped from the Heart to the Brain. Aren't they too related? What is the level of monkey ability to think with human? Yes, monkey have brain and heart too. But can monkey speak in English? German? Sanskrit? I'm talking about Darwin because it is related to human Desire. The theory is used to validate incorrect Desires. You had stated about why opposing natural desires? I also do not get what do you actually wanted to say? Do you want to say Islam prohibits human from the pleasure of life? It does not teach that we should abandon marriage, we can marry and have children. It is adultery that is prohibited. It is not wrong in Western World I guess but not in Eastern and also in Islam. Everything must have the limit. That's it. You exceed the limit, you ruin everything.

Religion is the Way of Life. It is not like the Church and the Country being separated in France in 17th C and we do not have Church to hold our lives and our faith is not depending on others. We have the faith according to our own level of sincerity, yet our Creed over One G-d is still standard. Also we do not have Pope to control the marriage of kings or rulers of a country whether in their personal problem like marriage as in England. The knowledge of our scripture can be learned by commoners and civilians, not only by the scholars or those who are learned in religious field. Civilians can count the tithe themselves and the measurement of the tithe unlike civilian in Europe of the Dark Age who were burdened by the tithe which only the Priests in the Church knows how much is it.

Mantiq is the tool to keep mind from mistakes. More clearly, Mantiq is a science that argues about the tools and the formulas of thinking till one can use it in a manner which is safe from the false thinking. Human is the creature which will never escape from thinking. But in the moment of thinking, human always influenced by various tendencies, emotions, subjective, and others until they can't clearly think. Mantiq is an effort to correctly think and not leaving humans in confusion. To understand this, you will have to understand what is thinking?

Thinking is the process of exposing something which is mysterious (majhul or not-known before) through the usage of knowledges that we already acquired in our mind (dzann) until the majhul (hidden) became ma3loum (exposed, known).

I guess no need to lecture more over the philosophy to you since you do not need it and it won't be useful for you. You already had acquired it earlier than us. I am also now going through your "Bible" which is full of the playing of words. I had bought an "English KJV Bible" from a bookshop with blue cover published by Zondervan and with the picture of god Jesus (if it is really him) in 2006 when I befriend a Roman Catholic Christian. I bought it myself and it is not my Christian friend who gave me that. I had read them in gradual and yes, it is very burdening to read many books in it beginning from OT to NT. But I had at least being fair by reading the materials. How about you?

I previously have Hindu-Buddhism background in myself. Are you merely here to attack others' belief or what? If you want to attack it then this is not a suitable place for you because this is only on Religious Comparison. We never influence others to belief in ours'. We just provide information from our side. Why are you so furious on everyone? Are you feeling threatened? By what? Is this a form of insecurity or something? Why? You do not read your own scriptures but simply coming in the forum and attack others first with questions? And we ask you questions again. Is it wrong?
 
Last edited:
1) Do you mean a sect of Judaism or Christianity?
Let me begin by clearing up some definitions, I have found that people can and do use the term "sect" to mean different things by it, so I am glad you are asking about how I used it.

I did not mean it in the sense of Christianity being a splinter group within Judaism or any other organized religion, though if you were to ask me I would agree that it began as a Jewish sect that was a splinter group within Judaism. In this case, I meant only that the movement that Paul joined already existed as a group of people who adhered to a distinctive doctrine, one in which Jesus was already worshipped as both Lord and God; one in which people were already baptized in the name of Jesus; one in which forgiveness of sins was already preached in Jesus' name; one in which Jesus sacrificial death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead were already the hallmark ideas of the faith -- and all of this existing before Paul ever joined the group. So, my question is, since this group with these beliefs already existed before Paul joined it, how is it that you choose to identify Paul as its founder?


So Christianity primarily is not a religion but a sect? Religion is broader than a sect.
I think I addressed this above. The definition you present here would also be correct, but I was using one of the other definitions of the term in keeping with what I just said above.



Thus the Law of the religion must be in accordance with the Law of Moses (pbuh).
Not sure what you are referring to here. But I can say that if Christianity had seen itself as just another form of Judaism, you most certainly would be correct. But it did not see itself that way. That was the first debate within the church. It was an issue that the disciples discussed and resolved at what is termed the Council of Jerusalem. They determined that one need not become a Jew to be a Christian, and that decision has never been challenged by any subsequent Christian body.


[quote[ Why is it Christianity today so different than the early teachings? How similar is the sect of the time Paul joined in than with today's?[/quote]Since I didn't live in Paul's day or have first-hand experience from the early church, all I have to go on is what is recorded in the Bible and other writings of the early church fathers.

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.



2) What had the disciples taught? In which verse of Bible, Thomas recorded as reporting that Jesus declared himself the G-d? Mind sharing it with us? Together with your scholars' interpretation of the verses?
I did not say that Thomas reported that Jesus declared himself God, I said that Thomas declared him to be God. You can find Thomas' reference to Jesus as both Lord and God in John 20:28 "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' "

As for commentators' comments, I think the verse speaks for itself, but since you asked here are a few:
Thomas confessed Jesus as his Lord and God (see ref. j). If this had not been a true confession, Jesus would not have commended him for believing. Once again we have another witness that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. --Andrew Wommack

Thomas was ashamed of his unbelief, and cried out, My Lord and my God. He spoke with affection, as one that took hold of Christ with all his might; "My Lord and my God." Sound and sincere believers, though slow and weak, shall be graciously accepted of the Lord Jesus. It is the duty of those who read and hear the gospel, to believe, to embrace the doctrine of Christ, and that record concerning him. --Matthew Henry

Thomas now not only acknowledges him to be the Lord, as he had done before, and to be risen, as his fellow disciples had affirmed, but also confesses his Godhead, and that more explicitly than any other had yet done. And all this he did without putting his hand upon his side. --John Wesley


Should Thomas’ exclamation be understood as two subjects with the rest of the sentence omitted (“My Lord and my God [has truly risen from the dead]”) as predicate nominatives (“You are my Lord and my God”) or as vocatives (“My Lord and my God”)? Probably the most likely is something between the second and third alternatives. It seems that the second is slightly more likely here, because the context appears confessional. Thomas’ statement, while it may have been an exclamation, does in fact confess the faith which he had previously lacked, and Jesus responds to Thomas’ statement in the following verse as if it were a confession. --W. Hall Harris III

A Note on the significance of Thomas’ confession:
With the proclamation by Thomas here, it is difficult to see how any more profound analysis of Jesus’ person could be given. It echoes 1:1 and 1:14 together: the Word was God, and the Word became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). The Fourth Gospel opened with many other titles for Jesus: the Lamb of God (1:29, 36); the Son of God (1:34, 49); Rabbi (1:38); Messiah (1:41); the King of Israel (1:49); the Son of Man (1:51). Now the climax is reached with the proclamation by Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and we have come full circle from 1:1, where the Evangelist had introduced the reader to who Jesus was, to 20:28, where the last of the disciples has come to the full realization of who Jesus was. What Jesus had predicted in 8:28 had come to pass: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM…”. By being lifted up in crucifixion (which led in turn to death, resurrection, and exaltation with the Father) Jesus has revealed his true identity as both LORD (kuvrio", used by the LXX to translate hwhy) and GOD (qeov", used by the LXX to translate <hla). --also by W. Hall Harris III

And since you asked about differences between now and the early church, here is a a commentary on that same verse by one of the early church father, Saint Cyril of Alexandria:

He [Thomas] that had shortly before been slack in the duty of faith was now eager to profess it. and in a short time his fault was wholly cured. For after an interval of only eight days the hindrances to his faith were removed by Christ, Who showed unto him the print of the nails and His wounded Side. But, perhaps, someone will ask the question: "Tell me why did the minds of the holy disciples carry out so rigid an inquiry, and so careful a scrutiny? For would not the sight of the Lord's Body, the features of His Face, and the measure of His Stature, have sufficed to prove that He had indeed risen from the dead, and to secure His recognition?" What do we reply? The inspired disciples were not free from doubt, although they had seen the Lord. For they thought that He was not in very truth the same as He Who of old had lived and dwelt among them, and had hung upon the Cross, but rather that He was a Spirit, cunningly fashioned like unto our Saviour's Image, and simulating the features of the form which they knew. For they fell into this delusion not without some apparent excuse, as He miraculously entered when the doors were closed; in spite of the fact that a body of coarse earthy mould requires a hole through which it can pass, and necessitates the aperture of the door to correspond in width with the size of the body. For this cause our Lord Jesus Christ, greatly to our profit, laid bare His Side to Thomas, and exposed the wounds on His Person, through his agency giving adequate proof to all. For though of Thomas alone is recorded the saying: Except I shall put my hands and see the prints of the nails, and put my hand into His Side, I will not believe, yet was the charge of lack of faith common to them all; and we shall find that the minds of the other disciples were not free from perplexity, though they said unto the holy Thomas: We have seen the Lord. And that what we say does not err from the truth we may easily perceive by what the Divine Luke tells us: As they spake these things, He stood in the midst of them, that is, of course, Christ, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do reasonings arise in your hearts? See My Hands and My Feet, that it is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having. And when He had said this, He showed them His Hands and His Feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them. You see how the thought of unbelief is found lurking, not in the blessed Thomas alone, but that the minds of the other disciples were afflicted with a kindred disease. For, lo and behold! seeing that their faith wavered even after the sight of the wounds upon the Cross, He thought it right to convince them by another act, in nowise suited to a spirit, but specially appropriate to earthly bodies and the nature of flesh. For He ate the fish that was brought unto Him, or the portion of one. For when no mark at all of corruption any longer remained after the Resurrection of His holy Flesh, because He lived again to incorruption, and when it was incredible that His Body stood in need of food as heretofore, He yet showed unto them the print of the nails, and did not refuse to partake of food, in order that He might establish the great mystery of the Resurrection, and cause faith in it to spring up in the souls of us all. He does acts wholly alien to the nature of spirits. For how, and in what way, could the prints of nails, and the traces of wounds, and participation in bodily food, be found to exist in a naked spirit unconnected with flesh, to which all these things are suitable by the law of its being and the conditions under which it exists? In order, then, that none might think that Christ rose again a mere spirit, or an impalpable body, shadowy and ethereal, to which some give the name of spiritual, but that the selfsame body that was sown in corruption, as Paul saith, might be believed to have risen again, He openly did acts suitable to a palpable human form. What we said at first, however, namely, that the blessed disciple did not so much lack faith owing to infirmity of judgment, but rather was affected in this way by excess of joy, will not be wide of the mark. For we have heard the saying of the blessed Luke concerning all the others: And while they disbelieved for joy and wondered. It was wonder, therefore, that made the disciples slow to be convinced. But as henceforward there was no excuse for unbelief, as they saw with their own eyes, the blessed Thomas accordingly unflinchingly confessed his faith in Him, saying: My Lord and my God. For we must all confess that it follows of a surety that He That is Lord by Nature and Ruler over all is also God, just as also universal dominion and the glory of sovereignty is clearly seen to appertain to the living God.

Observe, too, that when he says My Lord and my God, he uses the article to show that there was One Lord and One God. For he does not say without the qualification of the article, My Lord and my God, to prevent any one from imagining that he called Him Lord or God as he might have done one of ourselves or of the holy angels. For there are gods many and lords many, in this sense, in heaven and on earth, as the wise Paul has taught us; but rather he recognises Him as, in a special sense, the One Lord and God, as begotten of the Father, Who is by Nature Lord and God, when he says, My Lord and my God; and, what is a still greater indication of the truth, the Saviour heard His disciple saying this, and saw that he rested in the firm conviction that He was, in fact, the Lord and God, and thought it not right to rebuke him. Christ, then, approved his faith, and with justice. And you may easily see that what I say is true. For to him that was possessed of this faith He says, at the end of the Gospel, as unto the rest: Go ye and make disciples of all the nations. And if He bids him who was thus minded teach all nations, and appointed him to instruct the world in His mysteries, He wishes us to have a like faith. For He is, in fact, Lord and God by Nature, even when Incarnate Man. For observe that the disciple, when he had touched His Hands, and Feet, and Side, made unto Him this confession of faith, not severing Emmanuel into a duality of Sons, but recognising Him as one and the same in the Flesh, for Jesus Christ is One Lord, according to the Scripture.



Isn't that, it is reported Barnabas wrote in his Epistle, G-d need not blood as the offering? I can accept him as a high priest. But being a sacrifice for himself? How can he be the G-d and high priest in a time? Unless if he is the incarnation of G-d, again if I think like a Hindu who believe that G-d incarnates as certain human figures and if say I want to accept or still want to validate the idea of Trinity.

Barnabas reported:

What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord I am full of whole burnt-offerings, and the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and of goats desire not, not though ye should come to be seen of Me. or who required these things at your hands? Ye shall continue no more to tread My court. If ye bring fine flour, it is in vain; incense is an abomination to Me; your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with.

(Barnabas 2: 6)

(Translation of the Epistle of Barnabas by J. B. Lightfoot)

I had actually read something about how Paul and Barnabas went on a journey to the land of the Greeks but I can't remember every detail and it is not good for me to just tell what I can't properly recall as not to make false allegations to others. It is said that Paul had taught the Greeks about G-d but using their understanding of Pagan gods and incarnations. He might be teaching about One G-d but he used an inappropriate method. The Goal does not validate the Method.



I can't find the text you quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas. Reading J.B. Lightfoot's translation of it as found in Early Christian Writings, the verse you cite, 2:6, reads as follows:
Barnabas 2:6
These things therefore He annulled, that the new law of our Lord
Jesus Christ, being free from the yoke of constraint, might have its
oblation not made by human hands.
Perhaps you can give me the source for you translation.


But I'm not sure that you need to refer to a non-canonical writing, as the thought you were looking for as actually found in the Bible itself:
Amos 5

21 "I hate, I despise your religious feasts;
I cannot stand your assemblies.

22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
I will have no regard for them.

This does not mean that God did not want the people of Israel to make sacrifices to him, but that they needed to do it with the right heart. Going through the motions without the proper attitude meant nothing. However, I don't know of any place in scripture or even the non-canonical literature of either the Jewish apocrypha or other early Christian writings in which the concept of blood sacrifice is repudiated. However, the author of Hebrews (again not Paul, isn't that interesting) does suggest that because Christ's sacrificial offering is a perfect sacrifice that there is now no more need for blood sacrifices, because the atonement has been made once and for all in Jesus' offering.

Hebrews 10

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "[a] 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Note [a] -- this section of "The Letter to the Hebrews" is quoting from Psalm 40:6-8, the Greek Septuagint translation of the passage and not the original Hebrew text. The "Hebrews" that the author was writing to were the Greek-speaking Jews of the disaspora who were becoming followers of Jesus.


I find it an interesting theory that you propose regarding pagan elements in Christianity coming from Hindu culture. It is true that the Greek culture was actually more dominant than the Roman culture, even though Roman ruled by military might, the culture and language of the time that dominated everywhere was that which Alexander the Great had spread all the way to India. Plus there was plenty of paganism within Greek culture on its own prior to that, and most certainly Paul was willing to do pretty much anything to win a convert. But I do think this stops short of changing his message. If Paul had been willing to change his message to get a hearing, then he would not have had some of the problems that he did have, which were almost always a result of saying something that people did NOT want to hear. As for his journeying with Barnabas into the land of the Greeks, you are quite right. They travelled together quite extensively in the Greek world; you can read of their journeys in the biblical book of Acts, chapters 13-15.
 
Thanks so much GS,

I will read and analyze your post in detail first beside referring the "Bible", of course I will have also checking my scripture and also those scholars commentary because certain things that I'm still not clear with. I should have at least read first and then ask others question. So, it won't be wasting the precious time of everyone.

Regarding Abrahamic rites of Qurban or Qurbaana (Sacrifice) that had been mentioned. We Muslim do celebrate Eidul Adha which is the Feast of Qurban in the month of Zulhijjah where we slaughter camel, cow, ram and goat for the poors. It is as the meaning for the poors to taste the meat because they can't always buy them in daily life. Of course everyone who are performing Qurban should be sincere and the Qurban is not for G-d because He does not need them. He asked human to be sincere in performing every religious duty. This ritual traced back its origin since the time of prophet Abraham (pbuh) was ordered by G-d through revelation in the form of dreams to slaughter his beloved son Ishmael (pbuh). It is actually a trial for both Abraham (pbuh) and Ishmael (pbuh) and not really intended for him to really slaughter his son. This had happened because Abraham loves Ishmael so much. So, G-d tested him whether to choose between his faith or his beloved son. As to cut this simple, G-d sent an angel to replace Ishmael (pbuh) with a ram and G-d is pleased because both Abraham (pbuh) and Ishmael (pbuh) are sincere. They had brought back the meat of the ram they slaughtered. I do not know if this too appear in OT. I will try checking it first.

The quotes from the Epistle too apply for human sacrifice because when we check back in certain Hindu Tantri tradition like the worship of Kali (an incarnation of goddess Durga and goddess Parvati), there is human sacrifice to satisfy the thirst of G-d on blood. G-d is represented by Kali when He is in Wrath. When G-d is in Wrath, the Earthquake happened, anything bad may happen, so they have to sacrifice something for Him. This is a view of certain group in Hinduism. I'm sorry for Hinduism example but I know more about Hinduism as my past is lingering around it. I'm sure other places too have the ritual of human sacrifice like what I heard in Egypt during the reign of a Muslim caliph, I can't recall his name... when the River Nile is dried out due to drought season. The people there offering human sacrifice which is a virgin lady.

I'm so sorry about the technical mistake in my quote of the Epistle of Barnabas. It is in 2:5, not 2:6 and the translation is from the same translator. My bad and I'm sorry.

It is also stated in Ghandara Inscriptions that Buddhism had been spread to Greek land after the Conquest of Alexander of Macedonia. I will check them back after all. There are also Buddhist Greek kingdoms in North-West of ancient India. Even there are Greeks that married with the daughters of Brahmins in ancient India and learning the Hindu philosophy. Their tribal clan too being recorded in Manusmriti the Hindu Law Code. This is long before Christ Era. That is why I think the idea of three god-heads is quite sensible because Hindus happened to introduce this concept earlier than in the Christ Era. Hindus too believing in the Highest Power which can't be reached by Human mind. So they had divided it into three to explain the concept and the functions of G-d too make it easier for civilians of different backgrounds to comprehend.
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top