A question for Muslims concerning the Injil (Gospels)?

[Marybeloved]

Actually, the entire premise of the Christian Faith is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead by His own authority. If Jesus did not do that than either the Roman authorities or the Pharisees/Sadducees would have disproved Christianity LONG before MHMD would have a chance to.

And the apostles and the “500 witnesses” who are the primary witnesses of the fact and the blood they shed for this belief is the highest testimony they could possibly offer. The inability of authorities to counter or disprove the claims, especially when the sect (christianity) was also considered dangerous, is as you say, another proof. The “eloquent silence” of Jewish authorities, as I saw it put in an article, when Christians were going around claiming all these crazy things, about Christ’s claims, deeds, etc is another- Where is the counter-claim, the refutations etc?

 

[hamba2han]

The Hadith is Sahih Bukhari 9:92:379: Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on the Day of Resurrection.”

Here Mohammed is, saying clearly that while others got miracles, he only got the Quran, clearly consistent with what is claimed in the quran- So Which hadith are true?

You have misunderstood the meaning of the hadith that you have quoted.

What this hadith is saying is that people in the past who witnessed miracles did not remain steadfast in their faith… and this can clearly be seen in the case of the ancient Israelite people who almost immediately began returning to their pagan beliefs by worshiping a golden calf just days after witnessing Prophet Moses (pbuh) performed the great miracle of splitting the sea and saving them from Pharaoh’s army.

By comparison, those who accept the divine Message from their Lord and Creator will have their faith in Him immensely strengthened.

This is why Islam does not place too much emphasis on the minor miracles of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and instead focuses on the living and everlasting miracle that he brought to humankind called the Qur’an.

 

[Marybeloved]

You have misunderstood the meaning of the hadith that you have quoted.

What this hadith is saying is that people in the past who witnessed miracles did not remain steadfast in their faith… and this can clearly be seen in the case of the ancient Israelite people who almost immediately began returning to their pagan beliefs by worshiping a golden calf just days after witnessing Prophet Moses (pbuh) performed the great miracle of splitting the sea and saving them from Pharaoh’s army.

By comparison, those who accept the divine Message from their Lord and Creator will have their faith in Him immensely strengthened.

This is why Islam does not place too much emphasis on the minor miracles of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and instead focuses on the living and everlasting miracle that he brought to humankind called the Qur’an.

I respect your faith and your view here, so please don’t allow my objections to make you think I’m acting out of hostility like your sister in faith did earlier. I’m used to having these types of debates with fellow brothers and sisters in my own faith who are Orthodox and protestants and we challenge each other openly and directly (I think the forums here provide more than adequate examples) without any one taking deep offense- Perhaps it’s a difference in the culture of Christianity?? We don’t consider heated debate to amount to hate or attacks at all. Perhaps in Islam, it’s antagonistic? I think I’ll try to learn to better phrase my arguments in future. Any way, I just wanted to clear that up.

I think I may understand what you’re trying to say about this hadith, but I just don’t think it agrees with the wording- Perhaps it’s a wrong translation? However, I’ve scoured the net and all the translations I found look like what I quoted.

Mohammed says that the prophets were given miracles, and these miracles provided security to the followers, “But what was given to me ( ie Mohammed) was the Divine Revelation” so Mohammed hopes his people will be better than the others. To me, it clearly appears to set Mohammed’s sign apart from the signs of the other prophets. In other words, the others were assigned miracles, but I got the Quran (a better sign) so that since my own sign is so much superior, I pray my own people people will prove better than those of the other prophets. It seems quite obvious to me that if the speaker here had also performed the same signs as the others, he’d have said something like “the others only had miracles, but you have not only the miracles but the divine revelation, there fore you must prove superior”. It reminds me of a new testament saying of Jesus “To whom much is given, much will be required” and Mohammed clearly understands that he got a different but better sign. This is even clearer when you read it in the context of the numerous quran verses indicating the same opinion in Allah- That no other sign apart from the quran is needed for Mohammed’s mission.

 

[Peace_of_cake]

We know that the New Testament is but a part of a larger tradition and to read it in isolation outside the understanding of the faith and the tradition of the church is ridiculous

I got two posts, I am honoured
There was no intention to be insulting, so if you were hurt by my statements then I’m sorry. I’m just a bit confused that you’d make an argument like this and think it was fair. But if so, ok.
Why do you think I’m Muslim???
As you say our Church has preserved this religion… hang on Islam is preserved in the ‘hearts of the upright.’ Of course they have a tradition too otherwise why would the erudite Qadi Iyad write a whole book (Ash-Shifa) on all the miracles and blessings of Muhammad? It would make no sense would it?
I think you may have got Muhsin Khan’s dodgey Salafi translation. Aisha Bewely’s is better and it isn’t abridged (so its book 99 not 92). The Salafis seem to push his being ‘just a human’ very much and deny any type of mystical knowledge.
*6846: Sa’d related from his father from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “There is no Prophet who has not been given Signs by the like of which people were safe or believed. That which I was given was the Revelation which Allah revealed to me. I hope that I will have the most followers on the Day of Rising.” *
This maybe is a little clearer (even though the other one wasn’t really). Basically if he was talking to his companions who were well aware that he had given lots of miracles since they’d witnessed them themselevs then he is saying prophets are given miracles and I am given them and a revelation on top of that!
The study of hadith can be perilous if not given in context (just look at quotes in the media!). We wouldn’t accept Christ being mis-represented so I don’t think its fair to do the same to Islam… Do unto others and all that (even if unintended)

 

[Peace_of_cake]

I respect your faith and your view here, so please don’t allow my objections to make you think I’m acting out of hostility like your sister in faith did earlier. I’m used to having these types of debates with fellow brothers and sisters in my own faith who are Orthodox and protestants and we challenge each other openly and directly (I think the forums here provide more than adequate examples) without any one taking deep offense- Perhaps it’s a difference in the culture of Christianity?? We don’t consider heated debate to amount to hate or attacks at all. Perhaps in Islam, it’s antagonistic? I think I’ll try to learn to better phrase my arguments in future. Any way, I just wanted to clear that up.

Amen to that sister May we all learn from you apposite words
When non verbal communication accounts for 80% of communication then a merely text based conversation can be problematic… it has only a 20% chance of success

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Actually, the entire premise of the Christian Faith is whether or not Jesus rose from the dead by His own authority. If Jesus did not do that than either the Roman authorities or the Pharisees/Sadducees would have disproved Christianity LONG before MHMD would have a chance to.

I was a little surprised by this…
Its true the Romans didn’t care about another ‘Jewish sect’ only when they rocked the boat a little. The Romans use a system called syncretism where everyone could worship their own religion but only if they worshipe the Emporer as high god. They didn’t like Jews too much as they didn’t really play ball. They like the Christians less because they played ball even less and were very insular. So many rumors started like they were cannibals (re: the Eucharist). Then when they posed some tedious threat to Rome they were used as scapegoats time and again, burnt or fed to wild beasts or of course crusifixion. Anyway, they did sort of disapprove but only when their interests were endangered.
The more striking comment was about they Jews. They were very very much against Christians, which is really why the whole movement went West. There was the great war in AD 70 that got the Jews bannished from Jerusalem and their temple burnt to the ground. Jews in Christianities formative years were very angry at the Godhead concept and the leaving of the law and the allowance of gentiles. Very soon it became vicious. Hence why (The Great Christian Emporer) Theodosius in his Codex said that if any Jew should stone a convert (from Judaism) to Christianity he would be burnt.

 

[Marybeloved]

I got two posts, I am honoured
There was no intention to be insulting, so if you were hurt by my statements then I’m sorry. I’m just a bit confused that you’d make an argument like this and think it was fair. But if so, ok.

Well, I appreciate the apology. I wasn’t hurt, just shocked that challenging people’s views of a religion can be taken as hatred- I’ve been on here a few months, I’ve debated Orthodox, Protestants and other Catholics and I have to say it’s the first time someone accused me of hatred for challenging what they’ve taken for granted about a particular faith- Neither have I had the same reaction to being similarly put to task by others about my own assumptions. It’s just debate.

Why do you think I’m Muslim???
As you say our Church has preserved this religion… hang on Islam is preserved in the ‘hearts of the upright.’ Of course they have a tradition too otherwise why would the erudite Qadi Iyad write a whole book (Ash-Shifa) on all the miracles and blessings of Muhammad? It would make no sense would it?

Ok, I respect your views here. I just don’t agree with them. You seem to have made up your own mind that Mohammed’s miracles are authentic, I haven’t- I’ve stated that the miracles are recorded in hadith collected in around the 9th century, centuries after both Mohammed and the compilation of the quran. I’ve stated that these miracles have zero corroboration in the quran and that the hadith I quoted indicates that there’s contrasting tradition that mohammed himself identified his only miracle as the quran in contrast to the miracles of others. There are scholars who look upon the reported miracles as pious exaggerations which can be found in all traditions including Buddhism and Christianity where the sources are traced to a later period but the stories have no support in the earlier records- so it’s hardly unreasonable for me to draw the conclusions I have.

The study of hadith can be perilous if not given in context (just look at quotes in the media!). We wouldn’t accept Christ being mis-represented so I don’t think its fair to do the same to Islam… Do unto others and all that (even if unintended)

I honestly don’t understand why you think my arguments are unfair. I don’t understand why you think it amounts to “misrepresenting” Muhammed. I’m drawing fairly reasonable conclusions from the data provided by Islamic sources. Do you think being Christian means accepting claims of another religion when you feel it is not well supported by the evidence? especially when that religion is based on denying the most sacred and fundamental tenets of your own faith? That may be politically correct but it’s dishonest and I think these forum discussions are based/should be based on honesty.

I’m not afraid of people “misrepresenting” Christ- I have enough faith that he will be more than adequately defended.

I got two posts, I am honoured This maybe is a little clearer (even though the other one wasn’t really). Basically if he was talking to his companions who were well aware that he had given lots of miracles since they’d witnessed them themselevs then he is saying prophets are given miracles and I am given them and a revelation on top of that!..I think you may have got Muhsin Khan’s dodgey Salafi translation. Aisha Bewely’s is better and it isn’t abridged (so its book 99 not 92). The Salafis seem to push his being ‘just a human’ very much and deny any type of mystical knowledge…*6846: Sa’d related from his father from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “There is no Prophet who has not been given Signs by the like of which people were safe or believed. That which I was given was the Revelation which Allah revealed to me. I hope that I will have the most followers on the Day of Rising.” *

I’m afraid I still see the same meaning. Mohammed says all prophets have been given signs for people to believe and he identifies the sign given to him as the revelation. He then says that he hopes he’ll have more followers, clearly comparing the effects of his own sign (quran) which he sees as distinct, and the effects of the others in contrast- I’m saying it clearly shows Muhammed saw his sign as different from the others, which wouldn’t make sense if he also performed the same miracles as the others- and this jives with the data of the quran and not the “miracle” hadiths.

And no as to the underlined part. I think this is an assumption on your own part because you’ve already assumed he performed the miracles. I see him clearly acknowledging that God did not give him the same signs he gave to the others but gave him a special one- “my miracle is the quran” and he’s doing it in the context of comparing it to the other prophets miracles in terms of effect on their respective ummahs.- A type of “friendly” competition.

 

[Marybeloved]

I was a little surprised by this…
Its true the Romans didn’t care about another ‘Jewish sect’ only when they rocked the boat a little. The Romans use a system called syncretism where everyone could worship their own religion but only if they worshipe the Emporer as high god. They didn’t like Jews too much as they didn’t really play ball. They like the Christians less because they played ball even less and were very insular. So many rumors started like they were cannibals (re: the Eucharist). Then when they posed some tedious threat to Rome they were used as scapegoats time and again, burnt or fed to wild beasts or of course crusifixion. Anyway, they did sort of disapprove but only when their interests were endangered.
The more striking comment was about they Jews. They were very very much against Christians, which is really why the whole movement went West. There was the great war in AD 70 that got the Jews bannished from Jerusalem and their temple burnt to the ground. Jews in Christianities formative years were very angry at the Godhead concept and the leaving of the law and the allowance of gentiles. Very soon it became vicious. Hence why (The Great Christian Emporer) Theodosius in his Codex said that if any Jew should stone a convert (from Judaism) to Christianity he would be burnt.

Perhaps you didn’t understand the comment the way I did. But I believe she meant that they did not provide any contrary evidence to the Christian’s claims such that they would have stopped the growing sect dead in its tracts. There’s no one from that time, Roman or Jew, saying, for example, that Jesus did not perform the deeds he’s claimed to have performed, wasn’t tried and executed, that his body was lying somewhere contrary to Christian claims and that the Christians made it all up- There were thousands of people who would have countered the Christian’s claims if they had contrary testimonies/evidence.

By the way, no offence but you do come off like a Muslim posing as a Christian in order to support Islamic arguments and downplay Christian ones- What exactly is your Church?

 

[Marybeloved]

Stand by MaryBeloved ~

Hamba needs to check answering Christianity dot com for his answer…

Or perhaps what Deedat has to say about this…

I keep forgetting to reply to this post!!!

I gotcha - Best acquaint myself with all these sources if I dare make a comment about Islam again, eh?

 

[Peace_of_cake]

By the way, no offence but you do come off like a Muslim posing as a Christian in order to support Islamic arguments and downplay Christian ones- What exactly is your Church?

yeah I get that a lot.
Since 9/11 there has been a growing body of polemical writing. Since I’m Catholic I believe in Vatican II. It struck me a lot of the arguments are just anger driven. So i thought id research the religion. Just as we hate being told what we believe I thought Id look at Islam through the eyes of the Muslims. These answering Christianity / Islam arguments are not academic nor acceptable to the other so they just spread ignorance or anger or both!
Basically if the same or similar type argument can be levied against The Church then I won’t use it! To be honest they can’t reall be touched! My only argument is it seems a bad opinion of God to say so many believers were misguided. Though they could equally, but it’s not a good argument that makes people believe, but the Divine impression you see in others. HH John Paul II example when growing up was enough to convince me. He had a good opinion of Islam. I’m no better than my teacher so I can only follow his example

 

[Marybeloved]

yeah I get that a lot.
Since 9/11 there has been a growing body of polemical writing. Since I’m Catholic I believe in Vatican II. It struck me a lot of the arguments are just anger driven. So i thought id research the religion. Just as we hate being told what we believe I thought Id look at Islam through the eyes of the Muslims. These answering Christianity / Islam arguments are not academic nor acceptable to the other so they just spread ignorance or anger or both!
Basically if the same or similar type argument can be levied against The Church then I won’t use it! To be honest they can’t reall be touched! My only argument is it seems a bad opinion of God to say so many believers were misguided. Though they could equally, but it’s not a good argument that makes people believe, but the Divine impression you see in others. HH John Paul II example when growing up was enough to convince me. He had a good opinion of Islam. I’m no better than my teacher so I can only follow his example

I wonder what you mean by saying JP II had a good opinion of Islam- Did he have a good opinion of certain aspects of Islam and Muslims or Islam generally? Did he ever speak approvingly in any way of Muhammad? - Vatican II acknowledged that humans who acknowledge the creator are included in God’s plan of salvation (indeed all human beings are), amongst whom are Muslims. How? It did not say. It only acknowledged (with the Catechism) that Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham. The Church has nowhere acknowledged that this is in fact the case. All the positive words of the Church have been directed towards Muslims- The innocent believers in Mohammed and his religion, not Islam or Mohammed. Any positive remarks given to the religion in ecumenism is directed only to the truths of God common to every man by application of reason, some of which are in Islam.

The Church has also said clearly in the Catechism that she cannot, does not accept any revelation purporting to add to, improve, correct or replace in any way the revelation of Christ, which is the fullness of God’s self-revelation to man once and for all given to man-kind and cannot be added to in any way whatsoever. Mohammed claimed that his revelation replaces and corrects the “corrupted” Christian and Jewish Revelations (and the Church accepts fully the entire Jewish revelation w/out purporting to correct it in any way). He taught that our entire faith is false- That: God is not a Trinity- that this is actually idolatry, Jesus is not in any way divine, God has no son, begets not and cannot be begotten, Mary conceived by an angel, Jesus was never crucified or died-therefore never resurrected- This my friend, is the entire Christian faith completely denied by this man, Mohammed. If you really are Catholic or Christian in any way,* (And I have to be honest, I’ve checked out some of your posts on other threads and I’m convinced you are indeed Muslim, in fact or belief)* you cannot acknowledge Mohammed’s revelation in any way, shape or form without at the same time denying your own faith and apostatizing from Christ. God is either a Trinity or not, Christ is divine or not, died or not, resurrected or not- The same God cannot give contrary revelations (contrary to the Quran, the true God is not a deceiver) and it’s my bold position that Mohammed had no revelation from the true God.

This the Catechism:
III. CHRIST JESUS – "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION"25

God has said everything in his Word

**65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27**

And also

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

That’s what the Catholic Church teaches about the Muslim prophets “revelations”.

 

[Peace_of_cake]

I wonder what you mean by saying JP II had a good opinion of Islam- Did he have a good opinion of certain aspects of Islam and Muslims or Islam generally? Did he ever speak approvingly in any way of Muhammad? - Vatican II acknowledged that humans who acknowledge the creator are included in God’s plan of salvation (indeed all human beings are), amongst whom are Muslims. How? It did not say. It only acknowledged (with the Catechism) that Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham. The Church has nowhere acknowledged that this is in fact the case. All the positive words of the Church have been directed towards Muslims- The innocent believers in Mohammed and his religion, not Islam or Mohammed. Any positive remarks given to the religion in ecumenism is directed only to the truths of God common to every man by application of reason, some of which are in Islam.

Let’s hope a Muslim doesn’t learn Latin and studies Catholic teaching and history for 10 years and the returns to his community to try and spread peace and understanding without compromising one’s beliefs then…

 

[Marybeloved]

Let’s hope a Muslim doesn’t learn Latin and studies Catholic teaching and history for 10 years and the returns to his community to try and spread peace and understanding without compromising one’s beliefs then…

???

 

[MontChevalier]

Let’s hope a Muslim doesn’t learn Latin and studies Catholic teaching and history for 10 years and the returns to his community to try and spread peace and understanding without compromising one’s beliefs then…

There is too much death between Islam and Christianity to “spread peace and understanding”. There is no middle ground here.

Like so:

During the events of 9/11, Muslims all over the near-east; Egypt, Syria, Persia(Iran), Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and several others, cheered at the deaths of 3500 United States citizens.

Tens years later, US Nazy Seals take a high-risk mission into Pakistan and successfully assassinate Osama bin Laden. In turn, the Protestants (Most of them), cheered, yet in Muslim-dominated countries, there was only outrage.

Once I asked a Muslims. “Hey, how come you guys don’t talk to your extremists about how what they do is wrong?”

Unfortunately, and typically, I never got an answer.

Now let’s set the scene to my family’s past. In good old Spain, without being provoked, the Islamic hordes poured into Spain; massacring and force-converting many Catholics in the process. My people were worked to near death to comply with the Muslim’s necessity to continue their “holy war” and I want say something about what they did to Jews, but it would shatter the eyes of nuns who were reading this thread, so I’ll keep my quiet about that.

Were it not for the French(Franks) who were led by Charles the Hammer, Spain would possibly not exist. And neither would I. When the Crusades started, it was an honor joining, and it’s an honor knowing my family fought, not just for God, not just for Spain, but for the survival of good and justice, in the Crusades.

As far as I’m concerned, you would think other people would learn that the events of the past can repeat themselves. And Osama bin Laden had been leading it.

That’s why peace and understanding are a hard thing here.

-MontChevalier

 

[GaryTaylor]

The fundemental issue is taking a Holy Book and interpreting it as Violence or Peace. I have seen muslims take a message of Love out of the Koran and sacrifice their lives for Christians. Pretty astounding to say the least.

However, somehow, someway they interpreted LOVE out of their Holy Book of the Koran. When you can interpret a Holy book to mean Violence or Love depending on how you interpret, than there is a fundemenatal lack of of understanding as we see.

When you can limit groups with indifference be it Jews, Christians, thiefs, or those committing acts against the Koran/infidels, and this is met with human intolerance. Than the sanctity of life is forgotten and violence prevails. Nothing Holy about this, or in Gods Kingdom where "mercy: is the key element. Than a void exists.

And btw there is nothing Biblical about the Crusades, more of mans error. What chapter does the Crusades appear in the Bible?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I wonder what you mean by saying JP II had a good opinion of Islam- Did he have a good opinion of certain aspects of Islam and Muslims or Islam generally? Did he ever speak approvingly in any way of Muhammad? - Vatican II acknowledged that humans who acknowledge the creator are included in God’s plan of salvation (indeed all human beings are), amongst whom are Muslims. How? It did not say. It only acknowledged (with the Catechism) that Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham. The Church has nowhere acknowledged that this is in fact the case. All the positive words of the Church have been directed towards Muslims- The innocent believers in Mohammed and his religion, not Islam or Mohammed. Any positive remarks given to the religion in ecumenism is directed only to the truths of God common to every man by application of reason, some of which are in Islam.

The Church has also said clearly in the Catechism that she cannot, does not accept any revelation purporting to add to, improve, correct or replace in any way the revelation of Christ, which is the fullness of God’s self-revelation to man once and for all given to man-kind and cannot be added to in any way whatsoever. Mohammed claimed that his revelation replaces and corrects the “corrupted” Christian and Jewish Revelations (and the Church accepts fully the entire Jewish revelation w/out purporting to correct it in any way). He taught that our entire faith is false- That: God is not a Trinity- that this is actually idolatry, Jesus is not in any way divine, God has no son, begets not and cannot be begotten, Mary conceived by an angel, Jesus was never crucified or died-therefore never resurrected- This my friend, is the entire Christian faith completely denied by this man, Mohammed. If you really are Catholic or Christian in any way,* (And I have to be honest, I’ve checked out some of your posts on other threads and I’m convinced you are indeed Muslim, in fact or belief)* you cannot acknowledge Mohammed’s revelation in any way, shape or form without at the same time denying your own faith and apostatizing from Christ. God is either a Trinity or not, Christ is divine or not, died or not, resurrected or not- The same God cannot give contrary revelations (contrary to the Quran, the true God is not a deceiver) and it’s my bold position that Mohammed had no revelation from the true God.

This the Catechism:
III. CHRIST JESUS – "MEDIATOR AND FULLNESS OF ALL REVELATION"25

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27

And also

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

That’s what the Catholic Church teaches about the Muslim prophets “revelations”.

WORTH A BUMP…Grace and Peace

 

[MontChevalier]

The fundemental issue is taking a Holy Book and interpreting it as Violence or Peace. I have seen muslims take a message of Love out of the Koran and sacrifice their lives for Christians. Pretty astounding to say the least.

However, somehow, someway they interpreted LOVE out of their Holy Book of the Koran. When you can interpret a Holy book to mean Violence or Love depending on how you interpret, than there is a fundemenatal lack of of understanding as we see.

When you can limit groups with indifference be it Jews, Christians, thiefs, or those committing acts against the Koran/infidels, and this is met with human intolerance. Than the sanctity of life is forgotten and violence prevails. Nothing Holy about this, or in Gods Kingdom where "mercy: is the key element. Than a void exists.

And btw there is nothing Biblical about the Crusades, more of mans error. What chapter does the Crusades appear in the Bible?

???

John 15:13

“Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”

-In Spain, the Almohad Moors continued force-conversions on Jews and Christians.

-In the Baltics, Pagans continued their assaults on Christians, murdering two saints and burning one church; slaying the converts with few led by the Bishop, fleeing for their lives, and continuing their rampage downwards towards Poland and the rest of Christendom.

-In the Holy land, attacks and raids and butchery and rape and enslavement and force-conversion were a daily thing, led by Muslims, first of all. Maronites fought hard, with great ingenuity for hundreds of years, and it was at their weakest moments, hiding in the mountains of Lebanon, that when the Crusaders arrived, they were set free from Islamic attacks. In Egypt, Coptics continued riot after riot, as the muslims burned their churches, desecrated their ways of life and even imposed their Arabic languages. Need I say more of what they did to the Armenians? The Syriacs Christians? In the Byzantine Empire, attacks went on, one after another, as the old East Roman Empire was forced to pay tribute after tribute to the Muslims, in order not to be slain to the last man, woman and child; and even then, and to this day, the events of 1453 still ring, and with pain, loud in Greek ears as the falling of a great and glorious Empire that would not bow to Islamic aggression. In the Crimea, Tartar Muslims continued the Islamic assaults on the Russians to the north, in exchange for wealth. In southern France, the Cathar heresy rose, which brought people to the lunacy of believing in two Gods (A violation of the 1st commandment) and the belief that all matter was evil and that starvation was the true way to remain pure.

The Bible does not condemn defense of others, much rather, it enforces it. And it even states, quite clearly, might I add, that the ones of greatest faith are soldiers; there can be no greater honor than this - something Christ himself said. Matthew 8:10

Is a Crusade biblical? Without a doubt.

When would it be fine to Crusade, I wonder? When all Christians are under Islamic “submission”? Or would you prefer we ended up like our Near-East counterparts? Whose churches are still being burned, whose lives are still being assaulted and whose women, I recoil to say it; but not doing so is a greater injustice, are still raped?

Man’s error is abandoning the Crusade. And abandoning Christ and his body when it needed us.

This completely derails the thread, but I won’t have my family’s honor besmirched by you.

-MontChevalier

 

[Kouyate42]

Ok, this has gotten WAY out of hand, so I’ll ask another question: why should I believe the incorruptability of the Gospels and not the Qur’an?

And I’ll make this a little challenging: I want you to state your case without resorting to quoting the Bible or Catholic teaching. Use logic!

 

[Marybeloved]

Ok, this has gotten WAY out of hand, so I’ll ask another question: why should I believe the incorruptability of the Gospels and not the Qur’an?

And I’ll make this a little challenging: I want you to state your case without resorting to quoting the Bible or Catholic teaching. Use logic!

Aren’t you using an Islamic frame of mind to judge Christianity? The concept of Christianity as a religion “of the book” appeared for the first time in Christianity only 500 years ago, when the protestant groups were born. It’s utterly foreign to historical Christianity. All the ancient Churches Catholic, E.Orthodox, Orientals, none of them have any such belief and to us (Catholics) it is a grave error that was made up in order to free oneself from the Church’s authority. So what exactly do you want to know? In Historic Christianity, we accept the scriptures as scripture because the Church declared them so.

***In Christian apologetics, the NT is first seen only as a historical record like any other ancient document and nothing more. Proofs & Corroboration for the events recorded there are then argued,and having then established the facts of Christs claims and proofs that they were true is the Christian religion considered “proven”.

For Catholics, (I suspect also Orthodox) the beliefs of the early Church and New Testament are further given to show that Christ gave his authority to the Church and promised protection over it, so that centuries later when the Church declares certain books scripture,it’s accepted on the basis of the Church’s authority, based on Christ’s promise, based on Christ being all he claimed, which at this point (see *** above) has been shown to be true.

I know it’s confusing. But asking us to prove the “incorruptibility” of the Gospels/New Testament involves many assumptions that are not true because our faith does not rest on the incorruptibility of the NT- The NT’s incorruptibility rests on the Christian faith. I hope I haven’t confused you too much.

 

[Marybeloved]

Aren’t you using an Islamic frame of mind to judge Christianity? The concept of Christianity as a religion “of the book” appeared for the first time in Christianity only 500 years ago, when the protestant groups were born. It’s utterly foreign to historical Christianity. All the ancient Churches Catholic, E.Orthodox, Orientals, none of them have any such belief and to us (Catholics) it is a grave error that was made up in order to free oneself from the Church’s authority. So what exactly do you want to know? In Historic Christianity, we accept the scriptures as scripture because the Church declared them so.

***In Christian apologetics, the NT is first seen only as a historical record like any other ancient document and nothing more. Proofs & Corroboration for the events recorded there are then argued,and having then established the facts of Christs claims and proofs that they were true is the Christian religion considered “proven”.

For Catholics, (I suspect also Orthodox) the beliefs of the early Church and New Testament are further given to show that Christ gave his authority to the Church and promised protection over it, so that centuries later when the Church declares certain books scripture,it’s accepted on the basis of the Church’s authority, based on Christ’s promise, based on Christ being all he claimed, which at this point (see *** above) has been shown to be true.

I know it’s confusing. But asking us to prove the “incorruptibility” of the Gospels/New Testament involves many assumptions that are not true because our faith does not rest on the incorruptibility of the NT- The NT’s incorruptibility rests on the Christian faith. I hope I haven’t confused you too much.

I think what would make the difference in approaching Christianity vs Islam is understanding these things: In Christianity, God’s “final and full revelation” to man is NOT a book, no matter how special. It’s not even the four Gospels or the entire New Testament or the entire canon of scripture- It’s a person! That’s why we believe in “God became flesh”. It means God stopped sending messages, written or oral, through prophets- Rather, He showed himself to us, once and for all, in a way that was compatible with our own nature/limitations. So that seeing him, hearing him, watching him, we could understand these things.

1. Who God is through our own perspective that is, our nature/our humanity.
2. Exactly what God’s will for man is- That is, What it means/looks like for man to be one with God’s will.

It’s like this, if you’re a missionary/explorer to a newly discovered island and you want to teach them valuable things, like math etc How are you going to do it? You know they cannot get what you’re trying to tell them, so if you start with your symbols they may just give you a shocked, blank look. So you learn their language first and translate your math/religion to theirs so they can grasp it. Christianity believes this: God wanted to reveal himself to us, so we could know him intimately- It’s impossible for man to know an infinite being, so God took on human flesh to “reveal” himself to us in our own “language”, our own understanding.

So for us, the incorruptibility of the Christian “revelation” means the incorruptibility of Jesus Christ, not the bible!