Saint Paul and Islam

[FaithofAbraham]

Dear FoA,

Why do you think that Christianity must be based on 99.05% Jews? Muhammad can agree to those 99.05% or to any other source, but Christianity comes from Jesus, the Kalimatullah, not from the Jews not from Muhammad, and certainly not from me.

I didn’t say that. I said Christianity has largely been presented and filtered through the minds of Gentiles who were comfortable with the idea of demigods and things like that. It started out as a Jewish thing but became a Gentile one and that’s when the interpretation of Jesus took a turn toward deity, rather than as a prophet with great power from God.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Dear FoA,

Christianity comes from Jesus Christ, not from the Jews.

Well he was a Jew, and Exodus says no other gods but God. If you have a 100% Father God over here, and then a 100% man-god over there, you have two gods, they aren’t the same.

 

[abucs]

Yes, but all jews who have existed through the centuries and have accepted Jesus are now Christians and their descendant would number in the millions. You just can’t see them because they have been Christians for generations. I would guess that the number of 1st Century Jew descendants who are now Christians are much greater than the ones that are still Jews.

With regards to Jesus’ frailties you are assuming that God come as man, is the same as God with his powers as the God in Heaven. This is an assumption by you. The idea of God as the perfect sacrifice (which fits very well with Isaiah messanic prophecies and the Jewish idea of atonement) is that part of the redemption is taking on these frailties.

God is a God of love and humility and the message of the cross is humility and self sacrifice and a lesson to all of Christ’s followers that we need to take up his cross and follow Him. In this way through our frailty we choose good over evil, and this is the sacrifice that brings us closer to God. There is no comparable example in the Koran.

I might be a strong guy, but if you put a heavy weight on my back and break my leg and drop me off in a hazardous place i might be on the mobile crying to my father also.

You are making the mistake of not thinking about what it would mean to take on the frailty of human form. I don’t know why. Perhaps it is your idea of God that He cannot purposely take on a frail form. It is this very fact that binds Christians to Him in love and guilt that he should do such a thing. It is the greatest covenant God has made with humans and combined with ressurrection, one that is powerful enough to illicit the response from his children. There is no such comparable covenant in Islam.

God knows how to make a point. Coming as a crucified man for our sakes is the strongest possible message he could make.

Because you can’t see the love of that doesn’t mean that God didn’t or can’t become incarnate for the sake of his Creation in the most beautiful way deserving of adoration and respect.

 

[swariffin]

I didn’t say that. I said Christianity has largely been presented and filtered through the minds of Gentiles who were comfortable with the idea of demigods and things like that. It started out as a Jewish thing but became a Gentile one and that’s when the interpretation of Jesus took a turn toward deity, rather than as a prophet with great power from God.

Dear FoA,

Jesus claimed that he was earlier than Moses. Jesus mentioned that John the Baptist is greater than any human ever live, and yet John himself said he is unworthy in front of Jesus. Jesus is the Lord of Sabbath. John a jew, conclude that Jesus is the word of God, being with God, and Jesus is God. Paul, a highly educated jew, teachs that living under the rule of Torah do not save people from sin, but having faith in Jesus is. Jesus himself claim that he is God. But, Jesus does not have to say explicitly just like demanded by Planten “Hey guys, I am God, Worship me”. No body, especially no Gentile would be dare to conclude that Jesus is God, unless Jesus himself says it so. All those Gentiles in your mind did not make that things up. They were just elaborately write what the early church believe when they make their writings. If any other cultures belief in demigods, why should we care. By writing in english does not mean I am an American or an Englishman, anyway. Please do not make conclusions based on coincidence with other belief.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Yes, but all jews who have existed through the centuries and have accepted Jesus are now Christians and their descendant would number in the millions. You just can’t see them because they have been Christians for generations. I would guess that the number of 1st Century Jew descendants who are now Christians are much greater than the ones that are still Jews.

Jews today say they believe in Jesus but still identify as Jews, they are called Messianic Jews or Hebrew Christians. Did Paul or anyone then say that they quit being Jews and became Gentile Christians?

So I was asking, were there any Jewish popes like that back then, ones who were actually born Jewish or lived Jewish then converted? If not why not, if Christianity came from Jesus and the Jews? If not then it’s safe to say Christianity was shaped by Gentiles who were used to things like demigods.

With regards to Jesus’ frailties you are assuming that God come as man, is the same as God with his powers as the God in Heaven.

You have to assume it is the same God, unless you say there is one God down here who is weaker that asks help from another God up in Heaven who is stronger, then you have two Gods which is Arianism. And against the command no other gods but God.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Jesus himself claim that he is God. But, Jesus does not have to say explicitly just like demanded by Planten “Hey guys, I am God, Worship me”.

He never said that because he never claimed to be God. He claimed to be Messiah to rule over us, and a priest like Melchizedek to make atonement for us. But he never said he was God or that we should worship him as God. It’s a Gentile thing.

 

[abucs]

But you are saying He never said he was God.
And the only reason you are saying that is to shore up a shaky Koran. You have no proof except hey, the Romans had more than one God so that’s where Christianity got its ‘Jesus is God theme’.

You have absolutely no evidence and are simply refusing to accept the Church that came out of that period and all of the writings from the different Jewish disciples that went off in all directions from Jerusalem from 33 AD.

You have no case except - i reckon this happened. It is extremely weak.

With regard to God being in two places, don’t you see the inconsistancy of your arguement. First you reject it because He’s too weak, and now you reject it because He’s too powerful.
We are talking about the nature of God who underpins all creation.
His difference from us we can guess at but in no way am i going to put God in a box and say He can’t do this or He can’t do that. He’s God. He can bring all creation to a standstill and be everywhere and anywhere He wants - surely. Unless you are going to limit God ?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

But you are saying He never said he was God.
And the only reason you are saying that is to shore up a shaky Koran. You have no proof except hey, the Romans had more than one God so that’s where Christianity got its ‘Jesus is God theme’.

Nah I was raised Christian and never really believed the idea of Trinity and almost gave up on Jesus altogether. The Quran is what saved my belief.

I would ask myself, why would God come to earth to be an example for man when we can never be as perfect as God? How hard is it for a God not to sin? Not hard at all. So it always seemed like Jesus was cheating because he had all these superpowers to avoid sin none of us could hope to have.

Or, how can there be a Father God over here, and a son-god over there, and still be only one God, well there can’t, that makes two God persons, and then it breaks the command to have no other gods.

And then, why would God be His own Son just so he could go to earth and praise Himself as His own father? And on and on.

So Trinity and Jesus seemed like a bunch of hooey until the Quran pointed me in the right direction and saved my faith in Jesus. Then I could make sense of him as a human prophet God created then went to dwell in, and read the NT that way instead, and it all made perfect sense.

So what would you rather see, an atheist sitting here? Or someone who believes Jesus is 100% human but still has God’s power and authority to act as God over us like Moses did in Exodus 4:16? So you guys should give more credit to the Quran for at least saving one person’s faith in God and Jesus as Messiah, born a deity or not.

You have absolutely no evidence and are simply refusing to accept the Church that came out of that period and all of the writings from the different Jewish disciples that went off in all directions from Jerusalem from 33 AD.

You have no case except - i reckon this happened. It is extremely weak.

With regard to God being in two places, don’t you see the inconsistancy of your arguement. First you reject it because He’s too weak, and now you reject it because He’s too powerful.
We are talking about the nature of God who underpins all creation.
His difference from us we can guess at but in no way am i going to put God in a box and say He can’t do this or He can’t do that. He’s God. He can bring all creation to a standstill and be everywhere and anywhere He wants - surely. Unless you are going to limit God ?

Well like I implied, I can’t put Jesus in a straightjacket either and say he’s a nut who prayed to himself as God and cried to himself to save his own life and all that.

 

[swariffin]

He never said that because he never claimed to be God. He claimed to be Messiah to rule over us, and a priest like Melchizedek to make atonement for us. But he never said he was God or that we should worship him as God. It’s a Gentile thing.

Dear FoA,

Why do you want to see things in explicit language. In the Torah, God made the Sabbath, and Jesus said explicitly that He is the Lord of Sabbath. In another thread you get the basic idea of Trinity but in this thread you deny the Trinity. Jesus said that he was God indirectly in many verses in the gospel, but you deny that. Rather then discussing of how and why you deny that, you shift the discussion into comparison with gentile ideas of demigods.

The Torah said thou shall not kill, and Muhammad killed people and make other killed people. That sound an easy way to compare that what you believe basically came from the Jews and later on Muhammad established reasons for his actions and put them in the book called Quran. If i compared this with criminals, I think I would have gone too far. But i would rather make no accusation as you do, and leave it to you.

Oh dear, I have gone too far out of topics anyway.

 

[abucs]

Well it all goes to the nature of what God is.
There’s nothing to compare Him with.
It’s easier to think in terms of how we are but that isn’t necessarily the best comparison.
When we think of things like omnipresence, eternity or a place beyond time and space then our minds just cannot comprehend such things.
In the end we have to be comfortable with our thoughts and you can do no more than that FOA.

Good luck.

 

[swariffin]

Well it all goes to the nature of what God is.
There’s nothing to compare Him with.
It’s easier to think in terms of how we are but that isn’t necessarily the best comparison.
When we think of things like omnipresence, eternity or a place beyond time and space then our minds just cannot comprehend such things.
In the end we have to be comfortable with our thoughts and you can do no more than that FOA.

Good luck.

Thanks brother Abucs, I agree with you.

 

[swariffin]

Nah I was raised Christian and never really believed the idea of Trinity and almost gave up on Jesus altogether. The Quran is what saved my belief.
.

Dear FoA,

Which Quran saved your belief? The one dictated by the angel Gabriel to so-claimed illiterate Muhammad or the one compiled by Uthman while he burnt the originals? That would be interesting

 

[itinerant1]

That they are said to be sent as truths of God is allowance enough for Muslims to read them. The Quran doesn’t didn’t forbid it. The Quran also doesn’t contradict Jesus on the cross (only that he wasn’t killed by the cross as assumed which would seem to void out Isaiah 42:4, but God took his life), binding of Isaac, etc. Muslims have just interpreted them wrong, though not necessarily Mohammed.

Jews also believe Messiah is fully human not a God so they agree with Muslims on that interpretation. I can only assume the difference with Christians on the deity issue is that the Bible was handled early on by Roman Gentiles and they interpreted the Bible according to their patterns of belief which involved demigods.

The fatal problem here is explained as simply as 1,2,3:
1. Sura 3:3 affirms that the Gospel is true.
2. The Gospel clearly affirms that Christ died by means of crucifixion.
3. If Mohammed, or any of his followers, or other passages in the Quran deny that Christ died by means of crucifixion, then they are contradicting the Gospel and Sura 3:3.

In addition, there is absolutely no historical evidence to support your assumption “that Bible was handled early on by Roman Gentiles and they interpreted the Bible according to their patterns of belief which involved demigods.” Furthermore, the first Christians believed that Christ was God before the Gospel or any New Testament documents were written. Also, there is nothing in pagan beliefs that is similar to our Christology.

So, I conclude here that (1) Islam is fatally conflicted on the matter of Sura 3:3, (2) your assumption about Roman Gentiles handling the Bible can find no support in history or the Bible, and (3) your assumption fails to take into account the radical difference between Christian theology of Christ and pagan theologies.

Now, all of this bears on my original question in an earlier post in that it tends to support my position that when Mohammed began teaching his new religion he forbade his followers, during this early period, from reading the Torah and the Gospel. The obvious reason for this prohibition is that Mohammed would lose followers because if they read the Bible they would see that his teachings contradict the Bible. We have just seen just one example above of how Mohammed’s teachings blatantly contradict the Gospel.

Also, that the Quran allows the reading of the Torah and Gospel is not a refutation of what I have said above about the beginnings of the Islamic religion.

Later, as Mohammed’s new relegion becomes established by the peculiar means that were used to spread Mohammedism, it becomes safer to loosen restrictions on reading the Bible because there are now enough followers willing to argue away the real contradictions, such as you are doing in the present time.

To sum things up, what the evidence does show is not that Gospel is wrong when it teaches that Christ is God, and He died by means of Crucifixion, and rose from the dead, but instead, it shows that Mohammed took many of his teachings directly from the Torah and the Gospel, but he had to reject those parts of the Gospel and New Testament, such as Christ’s Divinity, that undermine Mohammed’s claim to be the greatest prophet of God.

This is why there are such obvious contradictions in the Quran such as the one involved with Sura 3:3.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[paarsurrey]

2. The Gospel clearly affirms that Christ died by means of crucifixion.
3. If Mohammed, or any of his followers, or other passages in the Quran deny that Christ died by means of crucifixion, then they are contradicting the Gospel and Sura 3:3.

Hi

Since Quran and NTBible both **affirm **that Christ did not die and could not die a cursed death on Cross, so there is no conradiction with Sura 3:4

Thanks

 

[itinerant1]

Hi

Since Quran and NTBible both **affirm **that Christ did not die and could not die a cursed death on Cross, so there is no conradiction with Sura 3:4

Thanks

The burden of proof is on you to prove that the New Testament says what you say it does. Lacking any references, proof, or solid argument, your statement has no credibility whatsoever. I challenge you to either prove your words or retract them.

The gauntlent has been thrown!

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[planten]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that the New Testament says what you say it does. Lacking any references, proof, or solid argument, your statement has no credibility whatsoever. I challenge you to either prove your words or retract them.

The gauntlent has been thrown!

itinerant1 :tiphat:

**If the problem is about the death of Jesus, NT says clearly or not that Jesus did die on the cross. Let us believe that he did die. But he is god. How can we say that god can die? Also who will kill him? Will he kill himself??

Well he, Jesus, was born too. If a god can be born then he can die also. But it is so complicated, not easy to understand. Does OT say that the Messiah of the Jews will come as a human god. He will live for a some time and will die for a short time?**

 

[paarsurrey]

Post #111 of itinerant1

If Mohammed, or any of his followers, or other passages in the **Quran deny **

that Christ died by means of crucifixion

prove that the New Testament

says what you say (Jesus did not die and could not die a cursed death on Cross)

Hi

In your Post #111 you have mentioned:

there is absolutely no historical evidence to support your assumption

I would like you all to kindly see some historical proof by accessing the following link:

Did Jesus die on the Cross? a BBC documentary
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1669658378154953060&q

I think everybody should join in this discussion and research; as it is the backbone of Catholics.

Thanks

 

[itinerant1]

If the problem is about the death of Jesus, NT says clearly or not that Jesus did die on the cross. Let us believe that he did die. But he is god. How can we say that god can die? Also who will kill him? Will he kill himself??

Well he, Jesus, was born too. If a god can be born then he can die also. But it is so complicated, not easy to understand. Does OT say that the Messiah of the Jews will come as a human god. He will live for a some time and will die for a short time?

We do not say that God, as God, can die or did die. God took on a human body while remaining God. We call this the Incarnation of Christ. Christ is fully human and fully God. When we say that Jesus Christ was killed on the cross we are referring to His human self or nature that died on the cross, just as his human self previously suffered torture at the hands of the Roman soldiers.

It is impossible for Christ as God, or in His Divine nature, to suffer or die. God is an eternal, all-powerful spirit and cannot suffer or die. We are saying that the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), assumed a human body and so became fully human while remaining fully Divine.

After the crucifixion, Christ’s human body was resurrected back to life. Christ then showed Himself to His followers before ascending to Heaven.

When we say that Mary is the mother of God, we are not saying that God was born, as if He had a beginning. As we all know, God has always existed. He is eternal. Mary gave birth to Jesus. And since Jesus is both God and Man, we can rightfully say that Mary is the mother of God.

The Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures prophesied the coming Messiah as a Suffering Servant. Later, we can discuss the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, as well as the Old Testament references to the Wisdom of God as a person, (Christ in the New Testament is revealed to be the Word or Wisdom of God). But let us make sure we understand first what the New Testament says about the death of Christ and how that is to be understood.

Does this help?

itinerant1:tiphat:

 

[itinerant1]

Post #111 of itinerant1

Hi

In your Post #111 you have mentioned:

I would like you all to kindly see some historical proof by accessing the following link:

Did Jesus die on the Cross? a BBC documentary
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1669658378154953060&q

I think everybody should join in this discussion and research; as it is the backbone of Catholics.

Thanks

BBC documentaries are seldom relevant to the truths of Christianity. In fact, I don’t find television or the popular media to be a reliable source of information on anything of real importance. So, I respectfully decline your generous offer to share a popular media story about Jesus.

In matters of religion, let us stick to more reliable sources of information.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[ralphinal]

Post #111 of itinerant1

Hi

In your Post #111 you have mentioned:

I would like you all to kindly see some historical proof by accessing the following link:

Did Jesus die on the Cross? a BBC documentary
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1669658378154953060&q

I think everybody should join in this discussion and research; as it is the backbone of Catholics.

Thanks

The people chosen as experts in this video are part of a group taht denies there were any miracles at all. The deny that Jesus was anything but a good teacher. They are not really Christian.

If this buried person can shed so much light on so many things, why can we not exhume him and see for ourselves? Open up the tomb, reverently, exhume the body, and examine it.