Islam or christianity which is true and why do you believe it is

[HarryStotle]

Matthew was presumably no longer a tax collector. So by that time he was respected by Christians as an apostle. So no wonder his name could have been chosen by the writer of the gospel of Matthew as his pseudonym. After all, Christians must have been embarrassed that none of the gospel accounts were made by eyewitnesses, so this was a solution. Similarly with the gospel of John.

Well, now you are just making things up based upon your false notion that the Gospel authors were originally unknown and were later ascribed by Christians to be the writers.

The historical evidence for that claim is, to put it bluntly, non-existent.

The earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gospels in existence were all named with the names that are attributed to them today. There are NO anonymous Gospels that we can point to to sustain the tenuous claim that the Gospels were originally anonymous.

In fact, there was not even any debate among the early Church Fathers or critics of Christianity regarding who wrote the Gospels. This is an issue which has been concocted recently as a result of ignorance rather than as a consequence of any evidence whatsoever.

Furthermore, we do have at least one example of an actual anonymous work from Scripture which demonstrates how anonymity was treated by the early Church. The Letter to the Hebrews was actually anonymous and debate arose very early concerning to whom it should be attributed. The fact that no debate about the Gospel writers can be found anywhere among the ancient commentators demonstrates that there never was an issue about who wrote the Gospels. It should be noted that early critics of Christianity would have made hay out of the fact that the Gospels were not originally attributed to specific authors. There are no early critics, for example, Celsus, that made that an issue. And the fact that no unnamed ancient manuscripts exist is further evidence that there are no grounds for even thinking that names of authors were attributed later.

The other historical tidbit that puts your position into deep jeopardy is that the Gospels were spread very widely across the ancient world in the first and second centuries. If they initially were anonymous, it would have been quite a feat of revisionism to collect and correctly name each of these copies at the same time as making sure no unnamed copies remained extant.

 

[superblue]

To maintain peace in the world, it is easier to just appease those of other religions instead of being blatant with the truth and just constantly tell the world that yes Jesus is the Son of the Living God and that Jesus set Peter as the Rock for His Church and ipsofacto we now have the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church is the only way to salvation.

Doesn’t come off as too welcoming, and only leads to people wanting to fight it out to some degree or another, and with Islam in the Middle East and abroad being for the most part on edge and easily offended it is just easier to appease than to try anything else. Even if Islam goes out of their way to blast Catholcism.

It is why the Church and the Papacy always has to be very careful in dealing with world powers and other religions because they do not want the Vatican to be directly attacked, and do not want to see acts of violence on Christians in the middle east and abroad.

 

[jdavani]

what about bahuallah? he claimed to be God and his followers say he performed miracles

 

[Saxum]

I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that he is fully God and fully Man. I believe that he died for my sins. I believe that he rose from the dead. I believe that he will come again. Jesus is the truth. I reject any religious figure or any religious text that denies the gospel of Jesus Christ or claims to have a new revelation. God spoke by his Word and has nothing more to say. Therefore I reject both Islam and Baha’i. No man can know God except by Jesus the Lord.

 

[jdavani]

Yeah, I reject them too. I’m a catholic too. I wasn’t accusing you of not being catholic. But you said Jesus was the only man who claimed to be God and I’m saying other people claimed to be God

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria, I have looked at the thread you recommended, but it does not look relevant.

I started the thread for you so that you could defend Islam’s position on slavery there. This is really off topic here.

I do accept that the Qur’an teaches slavery, even though most Muslims nowadays are against slavery and it is at least legally abolished in almost all predominantly Muslim countries.

I don’t believe you. That is a mere say-so statement on your part. But Sharia Law is based upon the Quran and the Quran, as you say, accepts and teaches slavery.

But the issue I was talking about is that not only the Old Testament, but also the New Testament teaches slavery. In fact, the New Testament goes even further than the Old one, by commanding slaves to obey their masters, see Eph. 6:5, Titus 2:9, and 1 Peter 2:18…

Again, you’re looking at this from the perspective of “people of the book”. We are not people of the book.

Let me repeat this since it doesn’t seem to be sinking in. We are not “people of the book”. Muslims are.

We are people of the Word of God which is passed down by Sacred Tradition, primarily and this Sacred Tradition is only understood in the light of Catholic Teaching (i.e. Magisterium). And the Magisterium has denounced slavery in no uncertain terms.

So, try again. And this time you might want to try to defend Islam’s stance on slavery in the thread established for it.

 

[Saxum]

I didn’t realise the founder of Baha’i claimed to be God. It’s surprising because Islam is staunchly monotheist. I stand corrected.

Nevertheless, Jesus Christ is evidently the most important and influential man to walk the Earth. The other religious figures pale in comparison.

 

[jdavani]

the bahai religion has nothing to do with islam

 

[AdamP88]

Christianity, Specifically Catholicism.

Because it makes sense from a reason and moral perspective, and I believe that Jesus came to die for our sins. No other faith makes sense completely from a philosophical/moral perspective. The only other one that even comes close is Judaism.

 

[Saxum]

Baha’i began as a new interpretation of Shia Islam. The Bab came from Iran but his interpretations were rejected by the Iranian religious scholars. Baha’i is a spin off from Islam - and this is why Baha’i accepts Muhammad as a prophet.

 

[HarryStotle]

Sounds like an argument from ignorance, just like the argument that the original Gospels “could have been” anonymous. Perhaps Papias knew something that we do not know today. To argue that he was wrong based upon the lack of any Hebrew versions of Matthew seems a bit of overreach regarding what can be concluded. What we don’t see, however, are any references to anonymous Gospels, so your denial that Matthew could have been the original author of the Gospel because there are no Hebrew versions of Matthew should be accompanied by a denial by you that the Gospels could have been anonymous based upon a lack of any extant anonymous copies of the Gospels – that is, if you want to be consistent.

The claim that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew has at least the claim by Papias in support, whereas the claim that the Gospels were originally anonymous has nothing.

Merely because the Gospel of Matthew wasn’t originally written in Hebrew does not prove, by any stretch, that Matthew could not have written the Gospel. Matthew was a tax collector FOR THE ROMAN AUTHORITIES who likely didn’t do their business in Hebrew. Koine Greek was the language of diplomacy and commerce in the eastern Mediterranean region. Matthew could well have been fluent in Greek as a result of his occupation. Greek had been the common language in the region for a number of centuries.

 

[Saxum]

It is also likely that Satan inspired the founder of Baha’i to pervert the truth. The devil knows the truth and he twists it just enough to confuse people.

 

[Saxum]

There is a difference between public revelation and private revelation. Public revelation must be believed and forms the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Public revelation ended with the last Apostle. Private revelation is not part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith: it illuminates the revealed truth and never contradicts it. Catholics are not obliged to believe in any private revelation.

 

[jdavani]

but baha’i people also accept jesus and buddha and shiva and abraham and every religion

 

[Saxum]

They don’t accept Jesus. If they really accepted Jesus, they’d know that he is the way, the truth and the life. Jesus is the final revelation - there are no prophets after him. Nobody can be saved except through Jesus. Anything or anybody who keeps men away from Jesus does great harm to souls.

 

[HarryStotle]

Luke, in the beginning of his gospel, claimed to have read quite a number of gospel accounts. He did not claim any of the gospels were written by apostles.

What?

This is what Luke wrote:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)

To read, as you do, that by writing “just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” Luke did not mean to include Apostles, is preposterous. Who else were “eyewitnesses and servants of the Lord” “from the beginning?” And how else were “orderly account” “handed down” except “just as” Luke was doing by writing his Gospel?

And it is interesting that almost none of the gospels Luke had seen have survived.

Again, WHAT?

It appears that a few have survived. There are three others, besides Luke’s.

Maybe the message of some of them was not convenient to later Christians, maybe they said that Jesus condemned the Law of Moses as not inspired, called for the freeing of slaves, called for equality of women and men, and equality of heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals, selected a similar number of female apostles as male apostles, did not require faith for salvation. So later Christians like Luke did not find this convenient.

Or maybe they didn’t say any of those things if they were written by “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,” given that Luke explicitly says that he was greatly concerned that Theophilus would “know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”

For your thesis to hold, Luke would have to have been a liar and deceiver and untrustworthy, in which case, why hold him up as your main witness as an example of a later Christian who “did not find this convenient?”

 

[Saxum]

So Satan, if he exists, could have also inspired Jesus to pervert the truth. But who knows. We don’t really know what Jesus taught.

Jesus is God. He did the will of the Father in all things. That’s why Jesus is trustworthy and in a completely different class to the likes of Muhammad.

FYI we know exactly what Jesus taught and we know who Jesus is. We are his Mystical Body and we partake in his divine nature. Also, Holy Mother Church is infallible.

 

[De_Maria]

It is not an issue of whether you are people of the book.

Yes, it is. We are not people of the book. You are. Therefore, you must obey your book as is.

Though some Catholics do believe in the inspiration of the whole Bible, all 73 books of the Catholic Bible.

Absolutely.

So such Catholics are people of the book which is the Catholic Bible.

Again, we are people of the Word of God, which is passed down by Sacred Tradition, which includes Scripture AS TAUGHT BY THE MAGISTERIUM.

And the Catholic Bible includes the New Testament, including Ephesians, Titus and 1 Peter, all of which teach slaves to obey their masters, so not run away, just obey.

Notice that the Catholic Bible does not instruct anyone to take slaves. Notice also, that the Magisterium does condemns the taking of slaves.

So regardless of what the Catholic Magisterium teaches today, clearly in the first century Paul and the author of 1 Peter, taught that slaves must obey their masters, and did not teach Christian masters to free their slaves.
And likewise for example Cyprian, in the 3rd century, taught the same. So that is the baggage of history your church has.

St. Paul did not teach Christians to take slaves. The Quran, does.

Quran (33:50) - “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”

There’s no comparison. The Quran endorses slavery. Muslims still do so. And you are not capable of defending the Quran’s stance on the matter or you would do so in the thread designated for that purpose.

 

[HarryStotle]

So Satan, if he exists, could have also inspired Jesus to pervert the truth. But who knows. We don’t really know what Jesus taught.

What he taught has been subjected to 2000 years of scrutiny by brilliant scholars, philosophers and theologians.

So, when you say “We don’t really know what he taught,” you need to speak ONLY for yourself.

Clearly, you seem to have no clue what he taught.

 

[Saxum]

The Baha’is do accept Jesus, very much so. In fact they believe he was not only a prophet, but one of the manifestations of God. So they can accept he is the way, the truth and the life, like other manifestations of God.

Jesus is not simply a prophet; he is God made Man. He is the ONLY way and the ABSOLUTE truth. No man can be saved without Jesus.

Muhammad and the bloke who founded Baha’i are false prophets - wolves in sheep’s clothing. I find it very insulting that the Holy Name of Jesus would be mentioned alongside charlatans.