Saint Paul and Islam

[planten]

What? You’ve lost me here. The Gospels are full of Jesus teaching what is needed for salvation. Did he say that one Man’s blood can save everyone? Start with Mark 14:24 His Blood seals the covenant. That covenant is Salvation. Just one place.

Let me put it this way. I do not want to offend anyone, but I must say this. If I want to undestand Islam, should I ask a Muslim before I look at what non-Muslims say? No. Now, for hundreds of years BEFORE Islam, Christians accepted Paul’s writings. If he was not preaching the truth, the early Church would have removed them from Canon. All of a sudden, a man claiming to know the truth teaches something in opposition to Christianity. He makes claims about what Christians beleive and shows a different way. The followers of this faith have tried for 1400 years to show Christians how they are wrong, starting with our own faith. You tell us why we should believe something without seeing what it is that we beleive. You say that Paul is wrong, but you cannot show me exactly how or why. You say the scriptures are corrupt, but you cannot show me how or when this occured. Here, I see something strange in the whole argument: similarity.

Paul recieved a vision of Christ. He was convicted by this vision. He then repented, began to learn the faith, was confirmed in his belief by the others and began to teach it. Mohammid recieved a vision of an angel. He began to teach his faith. It spread. There are also differences

Paul had others to comply with. Nothing he said was in error, or the other would have stopped him. Paul did not lead men in war nor did he conquer any peoples. Mohammid did not have to comply with any other teachings. His proof was what he taught and what he taught said he was the teacher. No one saw his visions. No one could confirm what he saw or what was told to him.

I see Muslims grasping at straws trying to shake our faith. It works on some. Not on others. Then, when some Muslims see that it is not working, they go another route. They try to show how we are the same. Again, we do not move. What is next? I for one will never become a Muslim, for a thousand reasons. Maybe more than that. I know that you are not planning on becoming Catholic. That is your choice as well. BUt before you claim that my scriptures are wrong, be ready to prove them using valid emperical evidence, not just because my scriptures disagree with yours.

**That is a good post, very reasonable and balanced without any harsh word. I respect the writer. I could present the list of differences that came from the teachings of paul. But it would only create rift and be unpleasant situation. That is not desired. A few things have been presented. We Muslims look at the things that paul taught are quite the opposite of what jesus taught.

I have presented some reasons about paul. Yes, we should learn about christianity from the christians and that is what we Mulims are doing. We are noting your points. But we also read the bible and we can understand the simple English. We read the four gospels and good words about Jesus. We have no place for paul. Most of the bible NT is full of paul. He is nobody in God’s books, in Quran or bible OT or the four gospels. (Three important books)

Jesus did not preach much about being a god or calling any one to worship him. God has to be worshipped. That is a must. How come paul started preaching about Jesus being a god or part of godhead ! That is where he parted his ways with Judaism and Islam. **

 

[swariffin]

**That is a good post, very reasonable and balanced without any harsh word. I respect the writer. I could present the list of differences that came from the teachings of paul. But it would only create rift and be unpleasant situation. That is not desired. A few things have been presented. We Muslims look at the things that paul taught are quite the opposite of what jesus taught.

I have presented some reasons about paul. Yes, we should learn about christianity from the christians and that is what we Mulims are doing. We are noting your points. But we also read the bible and we can understand the simple English. We read the four gospels and good words about Jesus. We have no place for paul**. Most of the bible NT is full of paul. He is nobody in God’s books, in Quran or bible OT or the four gospels. (Three important books)

Jesus did not preach much about being a god or calling any one to worship him. God has to be worshipped. That is a must. How come paul started preaching about Jesus being a god or part of godhead ! That is where he parted his ways with Judaism and Islam.

That is the answer Planten, the gospels (the 4 gospels) are the biography of Jesus and what He teachs, not about Paul. Paul confirmed what Jesus has taught to the people in his letters. It was not Jesus who was supposed to confirm Paul’s teaching. So, why talk about Paul in the Gospel. Let alone, Paul was not a Christian yet before Jesus was crucified.

 

[planten]

That is the answer Planten, the gospels (the 4 gospels) are the biography of Jesus and what He teachs, not about Paul. Paul confirmed what Jesus has taught to the people in his letters. It was not Jesus who was supposed to confirm Paul’s teaching. So, why talk about Paul in the Gospel. Let alone, Paul was not a Christian yet before Jesus was crucified.

** It is true that Paul was a jew (Pharisee) and a Roman citizen of Tarsus. The problem is that paul died in 64 A.D. His writings were well before the writings of the four gospels (80 to 100 A.D.). The gospel writers should have mentioned paul and his activity (if it was genuine) in their writings. They could not miss him.

It was necessary for them to mention paul if he was so important to christianity. They should have known and mentioned the vision of paul too. But they did not do it. That makes paul a doubtful messenger. He worked in the name of Jesus.

Jesus had warned that many will come in his name, so do not be decieved. Paul was the first man who came in the name of Jesus. Muhammad never came in the name of Jesus. He came with the name of Allah, the Beneficient and Merciful Allah.
Please do not mind my words and do not take them as bad words.

**

 

[swariffin]

** It is true that Paul was a jew (Pharisee) and a Roman citizen of Tarsus. The problem is that paul died in 64 A.D. His writings were well before the writings of the four gospels (80 to 100 A.D.). The gospel writers should have mentioned paul and his activity (if it was genuine) in their writings. They could not miss him.

**

Dear Planten,

Luke knew about Paul, but when he wrote the gospel (which is the biography of Jesus), no need to mentioned about Paul. Paul was not yet converted during the life of Jesus, so there cannot be any story about Paul in Luke’s gospel. At the time of service of Jesus, Paul did not do anything significant against Jesus and his follower. So, Paul did not get the attention of the gospel writers. But later on, after Paul’s conversion, Paul get the attention of Luke. Indeed Luke believed in Paul, so Luke wrote about Paul in his other book, which is the continuation of his gospel. Luke himself confirm that there is a sequel of his gospel. That sequel we call as the Acts of The Apostle, or simply Acts.

 

[itinerant1]

Mohammed told his followers to confirm his “prophecies” by looking in the Bible…

I am curious to know if any one has an historical reference to confirm the statement above.

During the late middles ages, at least, it was believed that Mohammed had forbade his followers to read the Old and New Testments. An example of this belief can be found in the Summa Contra Gentiles of St. Thomas Aquinas, Bk. 1, Chap. 6:4.

So, I am interested to know which is historically accurate. Did Mohammed tell his followers to read the Bible to confirm his “prophecies”, or did he forbid them from reading the Bible?

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[FaithofAbraham]

I am curious to know if any one has an historical reference to confirm the statement above.

During the late middles ages, at least, it was believed that Mohammed had forbade his followers to read the Old and New Testments. An example of this belief can be found in the Summa Contra Gentiles of St. Thomas Aquinas, Bk. 1, Chap. 6:4.

So, I am interested to know which is historically accurate. Did Mohammed tell his followers to read the Bible to confirm his “prophecies”, or did he forbid them from reading the Bible?

itinerant1 :tiphat:

Quran 3:3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Muhammad never came in the name of Jesus.

Quran 61:14 O ye who believe! Be Allah’s helpers, even as Jesus son of Mary said unto the disciples: Who are my helpers for Allah? They said: We are Allah’s helpers. And a party of the Children of Israel believed, while a party disbelieved. Then We strengthened those who believed against their foe, and they became the uppermost.

 

[itinerant1]

Quran 3:3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.

It is not clear to me that anything in Sura 3 specifically answers my question. I could use the commentary of a reputable Islamic scholar on Sura 3.3.

Peace,

itinerant1:tiphat:

 

[FaithofAbraham]

It is not clear to me that anything in Sura 3 specifically answers my question. I could use the commentary of a reputable Islamic scholar on Sura 3.3.

Peace,

itinerant1:tiphat:

Why. Was Peter a reputable scholar, that you would need him to be one in order to believe what he says?

You know where the Torah and Gospel are found, in the Bible.

 

[inJESUS]

** I could present the list of differences that came from the teachings of paul. But it would only create rift and be unpleasant situation**
no it wouldn’t…yu’ll see that it will only correct your misunderstanding and it will make you go in depth of Christian teachings…

 

[inJESUS]

The gospel writers should have mentioned paul and his activity (if it was genuine) in their writings. They could not miss him.

Luke and Peter did…some of your commentators did.

 

[inJESUS]

During the late middles ages, at least, it was believed that Mohammed had forbade his followers to read the Old and New Testments.

 

[ralphinal]

I would like to mention that only one dating system puts the Gospels being written late. Another common system places all of them as finished before 70 A.D. Mark would have been written between 35 and 45. This would mean that Paul had not started his missionary work when at least one of them was started.

Paul was not a follower of Jesus. He would not be in the Gospels.

I find it interesting that some Muslims claim that sense he persecuted the Church, he should not be trusted as a writer. We feel that he repented of the evil he had done. As a result of his repentance, the early Church accepted him as an authority. Is it possible in Islam for someone who hated the faith, even one who physically attacks it, to repent and become accepted in the Muslim world? It seems like I read a verse from the Koran that said not to ever forgive one who fights Islam. Is that correct?

 

[abucs]

Itinerant1,

there is a quote in the Koran that tells his followers that if they want to know the truth, they should consult the people of the book (Bible) and they will validate him.

I’m sorry i don’t know the number but it should be easy to find.

The problem is that the Bible doesn’t agree with the Koran, therefore Muslims say that the Bible has been corrupted although the existing copies of the bible well before Muhammad agree with what we have today.

This was again verified with the Old Testament books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[abucs]

I think there is differing opinion regarding the age of the Gospels and it hangs around the event of the Destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

The gospels ‘foretell’ the destruction (indirectly) and so scholars say that they should therefore be placed after 70 AD.

On the other side the people who think that the books were written before 70 AD say that the writers would have made a big thing about the Temples destruction if it had happened already.

In the Gospel of John, which is supposed to be the latest Gospel written he refers to the pool of Shilom still existing. This pool was destroyed along with Jerusalem in 70 AD which is evidence of an early writing of the Gospels and hence before Paul.

Also, all of the Gospels tell the story of Christ and end when he is taken up to Heaven, which is again before Paul is on the scene.

If you are going to write a Gospel of Christ, then you are going to write about Christ i would imagine. The writings after the 3 gospels mention Paul as does the traditions of the Church.

 

[abucs]

Sorry, that should be 4 gospels.

 

[itinerant1]

Why. Was Peter a reputable scholar, that you would need him to be one in order to believe what he says?

You know where the Torah and Gospel are found, in the Bible.

I believe what Peter said, and he says that private interpretation can be a dangerous thing. Peter gives a warning regarding those who misinterpret the writings of the Apostle Paul. Peter says, “He always writes like this when he deals with this sort of subject, and this makes some points in his letter hard to understand; and there are points that the uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture—a fatal thing for them to do.” (2 Pt. 3:16)

Apparently, you are an advocate of private interpretation. However, it is not good to presume on ones interpretive abilities, because presumption is the mother of all error. If private interpretation sufficed for understanding the Hebrew Scriptures, Judaism would not have needed teachers of the Law. If private interpretation suffices why did Philip ask the Ethiopian who was reading Isaiah, “Do you understand what you are reading”? To which the Ethiopian replied, “How can I unless I have someone to guide me? (Acts 8:30-31)”.

So, if you understood the Bible, you would know that what you are implying is not supported by either the Old or New Testaments.

Furthermore, I see nothing in Sura 3 that addresses my original question. In addition, I think Suras 21:5, 44:14, 16:103 and 37:36 are actually references to the fact that “wise men, men trained in things divine and human, did not believe in Mohammed from the beginning”. Now you may disagree with my interpretation and you can engage in every manner of vain attempts to show me I am wrong. However, I will reply that I know the real background of these Suras, and I do not need you or any scholar to help me interpret them. Touche, my friend.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[FaithofAbraham]

If private interpretation sufficed for understanding the Hebrew Scriptures, Judaism would not have needed teachers of the Law.

What are teachers of the Law then, gods? They are just men like you and me.

So, if you understood the Bible, you would know that what you are implying is not supported by either the Old or New Testaments.

What part of which thing I have said is not supported?

Furthermore, I see nothing in Sura 3 that addresses my original question. In addition, I think Suras 21:5, 44:14, 16:103 and 37:36 are actually references to the fact that “wise men, men trained in things divine and human, did not believe in Mohammed from the beginning”. Now you may disagree with my interpretation and you can engage in every manner of vain attempts to show me I am wrong. However, I will reply that I know the real background of these Suras, and I do not need you or any scholar to help me interpret them. Touche, my friend.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

Where do you suppose Gospel and Torah are found if not in the Bible?

 

[itinerant1]

What are teachers of the Law then, gods? They are just men like you and me.

What part of which thing I have said is not supported?

Where do you suppose Gospel and Torah are found if not in the Bible?

This is going nowhere. My orginal question in post 63 pertains to additional information to show whether Mohammed forbade his followers to read the O.T. and N.T. Your reference to Sura 3.3 does not answer my question. Furthermore, your comments about teachers of the Law not being gods, where the Gospel and Torah are to be found, and so on, are irrelevant to my question.

What I am seeing is a major failure to communicate. It would better if you left my question in post 63 for someone else who may actually have an answer.

Thank you,

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[FaithofAbraham]

This is going nowhere. My orginal question in post 63 pertains to additional information to show whether Mohammed forbade his followers to read the O.T. and N.T. Your reference to Sura 3.3 does not answer my question. Furthermore, your comments about teachers of the Law not being gods, where the Gospel and Torah are to be found, and so on, are irrelevant to my question.

What I am seeing is a major failure to communicate. It would better if you left my question in post 63 for someone else who may actually have an answer.

Thank you,

itinerant1 :tiphat:

The Quran never forbids reading the OT, it commands that we accept it as truth in 3:3 and elsewhere. Sorry if you don’t like the answer.