The call to 'jihad' by Prophet Jesus (pbuh)

[swariffin]

No, it is not because it does not make any sense at all for God to order any of His creations to be slain on Judgment Day… on account that all of the creations have not only already died but have also been resurrected on that Day to face Judgment.

Christians need to read and analyse their Bible in order to identify the person who ordered the slaying.

Jesus (pbuh) made his triumphant royal entry into Jerusalem at the head of an excited and enthusiastic following, with high hopes of establishing the “Kingdom of God” any minute; riding a donkey to fulfill prophecy (Zechariah 9:9) –

**Tell ye the daughter of Zion, behold, thy KING cometh. . .
sitting upon an *. . .
And a great multitude spread their garments. . .
and branches in the way. . .
and the multitude cried, saying,
“Hosanna to the SON OF DAVID. . .
Hosanna in the highest . . .” … Matthew 21:5-9

". . . because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should IMMEDIATELY appear" … Luke 19:11

"But those mine enemies, who would not that I should REIGN over them, bring them hither, and SLAY them before me" … Luke 19:27.

. . . Blessed be the KING who cometh in the name of the Lord. … Luke 19:38.

And so, again I ask, is this person who ordered his enemies who refuse to accept his reign to be slain, good or evil?

Dear Hamba2han,

The way to answer your question, is to look at your prophet Mohammad. He did slain his enemy personally and ordered other to slain the enemy. To repeat your question. “And so, again I ask, is this person who ordered his enemies who refuse to accept his reign to be slain, good or evil?.”

Can you show us that Jesus personally slain the unbelievers? Can you show us Jesus’ deciples slain the unbelievers?
Yes, Muhammad did and Muhammad was not Jesus deciple. Now back to your question. Good or evil?

 

[swariffin]

Over the course of time, the words “Roman soldiers” have been changed to simply “soldiers” and from the word soldiers to now “band of men” and “the guard”.

"Judas then, having received a BAND OF MEN and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh there with lanterns and torches and weapons" … John 18:3

1. “Band of men”: here and in verse 12 following, the words in the so-called original manuscripts are speira and chiliarchos respectively. Both Roman military terms, meaning “cohort” and “tribune”. “That John is the first Evangelist to mention Roman soldiers among the party which went out to arrest Jesus. . .” See John Knox’s — “A New Testament Commentary”, page 260.

Somehow, I don’t think that there will be many biblical scholars or historians who will dispute that a squad of Roman soldiers went to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus (pbuh).

Dear Hamba2han,

I checked the 4 gospels right to the original language, the Greek. I could not find any reference of any Roman Soldiers who made the arrest of Jesus at Getzemane. Can you cite the source in which saying that over the time the Roman Soldiers has changed into merely A Band of Men?.

No argument from biblical scholar or historian regarding who were the arrester of Jesus, because no body claimed that it was the roman soldiers who made the arrest (except you). The Roman did not want to affiliate themselves regarding the Jews belief. It is clear if you read the gospel of John carefully and objectively without any prejudices. And also, the Roman was not under order from the Jew’s high priest. Please don’t make things up.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

“But those mine enemies, who would not that I should REIGN over them, bring them hither, and SLAY them before me” … Luke 19:27.
…

And so, again I ask, is this person who ordered his enemies who refuse to accept his reign to be slain, good or evil?

God when He returns will “slay”, by accepting their self-removal from His presence into hell, those who have not chosen Him.

May God bless you with the sense to read the writings of other people’s you don’t understand as those who understand them do by asking them to help you do so.

If the person(s) who ordered His rebelious subjects to be slain is God, how CAN He be evil?

If you don’t see that He IS God, then you don’t understand the basis of the parable, which makes your statements ABOUT the parable utter nonsense.

 

[Joyousguard]

CentralFLJames;3093868]It is not a numbers game for God - He wants quality. I am not concerned in the least about Islams “apparent” growth. It’s not a loyal base of Muslims in many regions of the world. Rather its only because its the only “club” to join. Many many Muslims are false converts to Islam only because is is absolutely necessary to publicly call oneself Muslim if one wants to be able to live, work and be able to eat and have a family and not be subject to violence.

While I personally would agree that many Muslims are only such because they have no choice, this is very specualtive.

The issue is not quantity or quality but submission. Apathy with radcials at the helm can be just as troublesome. While the end of Islam is not in doubt the time between then and now will be interesting.

 

[Joyousguard]

You seem to imply that Muslims are intrisecally bad… This seems to me very exagerated. Among Muslims too there are many people more interested in doing good things than in threatening people for the so-called sake of Allah!
I’m sure that many Muslims, if they read this, will be saddened at least… Don’t generalise, please!!

There is no implication at all about the people. No person is intrinsicly bad. There is a huge difference bewteen the sinner and the sin. There is a huge difference between Islam and those that follow it. The religion of Islam has a life force all its own that can be manipulated by a handful.

The issue is not the people themselves but what the “religion” of Islam does to those people and compels them to do. Its almost along the same lines as studying the elements of a riot. Everyone gets swept up by a few agressors and instigators and soon you have a full blown riot on your hands with people who by themselves or in small groups would not start trouble but in a large group almsot get absorbed into the mentality and then go along with the crowd. Islam is dangerous and can entice good people to do very bad things. The religion itself is flawed and the fruit it prodices will be an extension of that.

 

[Denis_Laplante]

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of the Qur’an

Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation and instruct his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Ummi who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (pbuh).

Order and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired

The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and was instructed to the Prophet by Allah (swt) through archangel Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah (chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit.

Every Ramadhaan all the portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel. During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an was rechecked and reconfirmed twice.

It is therefore clearly evident that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of his Companions.

It seems that Muhammad would be great enough to keep his successors from changing anything in the sacred Book even AFTER HIS DEATH… It wouldn’t have to be immediately… because if Hamba2han means to say that even those who perpetrated the attack against the Two Towers on Sept. 11, 2001 in New York City did it in accordance to the Qor’an, then I would have to join those who call Muhammad a false prophet because this particular act cannot be said to be in accordance to the God of the Bible who said: “I don’t want death to the sinner, but that he change his (wicked) ways and live.” No way!! Remember when Abraham asked God: “Will You really make the innocent perish along with the the wicked? What a horror if You were to do a thing like that! Making the innocent perish as well as the wicked! How horrible, if You were to to do a thing like that! Will the Ruler of the universe render a sentence contrary to justice?” and so on… And God listened to Abraham! Yes, He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha, but He saved Lot and his children, and had Lot’s wife not turned back to look back at the city being destroyed (and probably having thus cursed God in her heart for destroying these without apparently giving them a chance to make amend, which those cities probably already have had then), she would have been saved, too!
No, I can’t believe that all of those who died were all so wicked, moreover the attack was not performed by God himself! It was performed by some men! It doesn’t make sense to me that the lives of innocent people don’t mean a thing to God, but I find it very feasable that to some men who falsely pretend (even sincerely, but still falsely) pretend to eliminate so-called infidels in the so-called name of God! I don’t condone any similar attacks on innocent lives even when they come from our own side, so to speak, so don’t think I would approve of such injustices provided that the perpetrated would be a Catholic!..
However, we condemn the wicked acts, and all sins, but we don’t condemn the sinners themselves, just because God requires this from us. It asks for reparation, yes. But it requires even more that they change their hearts and live a much holier life. His wicked acts condemn him, yes, but if he repents, makes amend and lives a much holier life, why should he be put to death??
Doesn’t Hamba2han pray “in the name of the all-powerful and MERCIFUL Allah?” I think he should meditate on what it means to be MERCIFUL… And what it means when God forgives!
Allah bless you!

 

[Denis_Laplante]

O.K., Joyousguard. I accept your explanation. It just was worked up because there are moderate Muslims among those who embraced it freely. We have to be careful not to imply a thing such as all of those who embraced Islam being wicked or things of the kind… God bless you!

 

[hamba2han]

Prophet Moses (pbuh) waged Jihad to punish people who were guilty of deliberately denying the truth. A study of the Old Testament shows that the Jihad he waged was of two forms. One form of Jihad was that nations who subscribed to polytheism were to be put to death in all cases, while another form was that some nations were spared in case they agreed to remain subservient.

The following verses depict the first form of Jihad:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. … (Deuteronomy 7:1-5)

The following verses depict the second form of Jihad:

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, and children, the livestock and everything else in the city you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. … (Deuteronomy, 20:10-15)

A Prophet Like Unto Moses
Also, in the Bible, in Deutoronomny, we have the words of Moses who reports that God told him that He would raise up a prophet from AMONG THE BROTHERS OF THE ISRAELITES, like Moses.

"And the Lord said onto me, they have well spoken that which they have spoken, I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." … (Deuteronomy 18:17-18)

And so then dear Christian friends, which is which here:

Did Jesus (pbuh) condemn and disassociated himself from the concept of Jihad?

If you say ‘YES’, then this alone would disqualify him from being the promised “Prophet like unto Moses”, don’t you agree?

On the other hand, if your answer is ‘NO’, then perhaps that could be a start of a new thread because this thread would then become a pretty much meaningless academic exercise.

 

[Joyousguard]

O.K., Joyousguard. I accept your explanation. It just was worked up because there are moderate Muslims among those who embraced it freely. We have to be careful not to imply a thing such as all of those who embraced Islam being wicked or things of the kind… God bless you!

it is not to say that all Muslims are wicked but the tree of Islam is rotten which creates many problems.

 

[Booklover]

it is not to say that all Muslims are wicked but the tree of Islam is rotten which creates many problems.

The question I’d like to ask is: Can you follow an evil person and be really good??

Vickie

 

[CentralFLJames]

The question I’d like to ask is: Can you follow an evil person and be really good??

Vickie

This is the question. Here we have Hamba looking for any possible way to justify Jihad when the overwhelming evidence is that it is not justified. It begs a question about the motive of a person to try and find a reason for conflict and warfare. It makes one wonder what is in the heart and mind of such a person.

Ironically Islam’s biggest failure is that is has no provisions for really getting forgiven for sins and gaining entry to heaven. My theory as to why there are so many suicide bombers and Jihadists is the mistaken Islamic belief that being a martyr is the only way to guarantee entry to Paradise. The saddest truth is Mohammad never taught that Martyr’s gain paradise at all and Allah is a fickle God and only lets souls enter paradise if He decides to for His arbitrary reasons. Islamic violence is thus a manifestation of the ignorance of their own religion by people who mistakenly think they can “earn” a guarantee to paradise by killing themselves for “Allah”. And there is no one coming back to tell them that everyone of these martyrs are going straight to hell.

Islam could stop the lunacy overnight if all Islamic clerics made a public statement that martyrdom does not guarantee entry to Paradise and in fact they condemn it to hell. But they will not since that is how they control their people - through fear.

There is no escaping the fact that its a evil religion and only God’s mercy makes it possible for any Islamic to gain heaven if they have not committed any mortal sins. But consciously rejecting Jesus as God’s son and God’s truth is a mortal sin. Pray for Muslims since they have very very little to stand on theologically.

James

 

[inJESUS]

Did Jesus (pbuh) condemn and disassociated himself from the concept of Jihad?

yes. Do you agree now before digressing or will you repeat this same claim next week?

then this alone would disqualify him from being the promised “Prophet like unto Moses”, don’t you agree?

of course not because the first criteria set by the Bible is not about war but about something much more specific. Anyone can make wars,the criteria is that like Moses, the prophet will speak to God face to face and the second criteria is miracles. Did Muhammad have both? no hence he is automatically disqualified.

"And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, ** whom the Lord knew face to face**, none like him for all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty power and all the great and terrible deeds which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel."Deuteronomy 34.10-12

after Moses spoke with God face to face, his face glowed with the glory of God. Jesus was transfigured when he spoke with God face to face. (Exodus 34:29, Matthew 17:2). Muhammad was never transfigured; he never radiated the glory of God and no one even witnessed him talking to Allah like in the case of Moses and Jesus.

Both Moses and Jesus performed miracles. but muhammad no.

"Say: "For me, I (work) on a clear sign from my Lord, but you reject Him. What you would see hastened (a miracle) is not in my power. The command (to perform a miracle) rests with none by Allah: He declares the Truth, and He is the best of judges. Say: if what you would see hastened (a miracle) were in my power, the matter would be settled at once between you and me…

The Quran, chapter 28:48 - "…They (the people who did not believe in Muhammad) say, “Why aren’t miracles sent to him like those sent to Moses?”

Disqualified.

For a better understanding of the peculiar similarities between Jesus and Moses that no one else shared, you better open a new thread.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…
The following verses depict the first form of Jihad:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. … (Deuteronomy 7:1-5)

The Israelites were given land that others occupied. These “occupiers” were to be driven out. If they did not “drive out” and decided to stay, then they were to be destroyed utterly. You can call this “jihad” if you like. If “jihad” means that a group must have the actual authority of God to do it (possibly genocidal displacement), then no moslem “jihad” is truly “jihad” because moslems are not of the people of God with any direct revelation from God whatsoever.
…

Did Jesus (pbuh) condemn and disassociated himself from the concept of Jihad?

If you say ‘YES’, then this alone would disqualify him from being the promised “Prophet like unto Moses”, don’t you agree?

On the other hand, if your answer is ‘NO’, then perhaps that could be a start of a new thread because this thread would then become a pretty much meaningless academic exercise.

Jesus’ “jihad” was to displace unGodliness by persuasion and example without violence. This form of “jihad” may be practiced by any human being regardless of creed.

You seem to suggest that unless Jesus is like Moses in using violence as Moses did then Jesus is not what YOU say He is, which is only a prophet.

Firstly, Jesus is not only a prophet but the Son of God, and secondly, there is no necessity that Jesus be “just like” Moses implied anywhere in your “evidence”.

“Jihad” as moslems use the word is so polluted by the “theology” of islam that it really shouldn’t be used at all. To even associate “jihad” with “Jesus” is near blasphemy in itself.

 

[Denis_Laplante]

Prophet Moses (pbuh) waged Jihad to punish people who were guilty of deliberately denying the truth. A study of the Old Testament shows that the Jihad he waged was of two forms. One form of Jihad was that nations who subscribed to polytheism were to be put to death in all cases, while another form was that some nations were spared in case they agreed to remain subservient.

The following verses depict the first form of Jihad:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. … (Deuteronomy 7:1-5)

The following verses depict the second form of Jihad:

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, and children, the livestock and everything else in the city you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. … (Deuteronomy, 20:10-15)

A Prophet Like Unto Moses
Also, in the Bible, in Deutoronomny, we have the words of Moses who reports that God told him that He would raise up a prophet from AMONG THE BROTHERS OF THE ISRAELITES, like Moses.

"And the Lord said onto me, they have well spoken that which they have spoken, I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." … (Deuteronomy 18:17-18)

And so then dear Christian friends, which is which here:

Did Jesus (pbuh) condemn and disassociated himself from the concept of Jihad?

If you say ‘YES’, then this alone would disqualify him from being the promised “Prophet like unto Moses”, don’t you agree?

On the other hand, if your answer is ‘NO’, then perhaps that could be a start of a new thread because this thread would then become a pretty much meaningless academic exercise.

Hum! Here is one difference between the Hebrews with Moses and the Muslims when it comes to punitive war: the Hebrews were ordered NOT to plunder any people nor their possessions, including their cattle and any of their food! Muslims, however, are allowed to plunder… why is it? It could be said then that the Muslims only attacked for their own profit and not really just because their God ordered them to attack… And to attack just for their own profit doesn’t seem to me to be in tune with a TRUE and RIGHTEOUS God!

 

[Denis_Laplante]

Prophet Moses (pbuh) waged Jihad to punish people who were guilty of deliberately denying the truth. A study of the Old Testament shows that the Jihad he waged was of two forms. One form of Jihad was that nations who subscribed to polytheism were to be put to death in all cases, while another form was that some nations were spared in case they agreed to remain subservient.

The following verses depict the first form of Jihad:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you – and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. … (Deuteronomy 7:1-5)

The following verses depict the second form of Jihad:

**And so then dear Christian friends, which is which here:

Did Jesus (pbuh) condemn and disassociated himself from the concept of Jihad?**

If you say ‘YES’, then this alone would disqualify him from being the promised “Prophet like unto Moses”, don’t you agree?

On the other hand, if your answer is ‘NO’, then perhaps that could be a start of a new thread because this thread would then become a pretty much meaningless academic exercise.
Ah! One of those quetions like those questioning Jesus’ authority as someone coming from God would put him in order to make him fall… I read some answers, but they only were refering to the temporal war (with arms, physical fights and physical slaying of ennemies) when they answered “no”, that’s the only one kind they had in mind. So to me that answer can only be true as far as one of the kinds of Jihad is being considered. I also agree with them on this specific part… But as to spiritual Jihad, the one that calls us to get rid of our sins and of our sinful inclinations, here YES, Jesus DID call us to THIS ONE kind of Jihad… even though he didn’t himself made use of the word Jihad as such (except maybe in Arabic translations of the New Testament!)
But it’s the ONLY kind of Jihad he called us to… it’s big enough in itself, it’s taking all of our lifetime…
Why is it that God found in David a king according to His heart and not most of the Kings of Judah? He kind of made friends with many people among the surrounding peoples without ever adopting their gods, did you know that?

 

[CentralFLJames]

“Jihad” as moslems use the word is so polluted by the “theology” of islam that it really shouldn’t be used at all. To even associate “jihad” with “Jesus” is near blasphemy in itself.

I agree - the Islamic notion of Jihad is so perverse and corrupt that its self defeating to even discuss in general terms that the term has any semantic resembling Jesus or his teaching. Islamics only try to make the comparison to justify the absurdity that they have the right to selectively “Love God” without also “Loving Neighbor”. These two commands are INSEPERABLE since God joins himself to HUMANITY as a partner through JESUS. GOD IS PRESENT IN THE LOVE OF NEIGHBOR. One can not kill their neighbor as an act of love for God! The definition of CHARITY is Love of God AND Love of Neighbor. Killing a neighbor is like trying to Kill God (and His children).

We judge a thing’s goodness by its fruit. Islam has born no good fruit. In 1400 years all it has done is sustained hatreds and contempt for is neighbors while self judging that it loves God. One can not force God to love him through violence! Islam does not love God by embracing violence. This is why Islamic lands are so violent and are in fact cursed in the same manner Jesus cursed the fig tree for not bearing good fruit. There can be no good fruits in any Islamic lands nor good blessings nor peace anywhere that lies are embraced and the sin of murder is justified in the name of Love of God.

The west is only tolerated by God because it permits God’s truth to be spoken and accepted or rejected. If the west becomes overly secular and starts actively persecuting Christians then it too will lose God’s protection and shared blessings.

James

 

[Denis_Laplante]

I agree - the Islamic notion of Jihad is so perverse and corrupt that its self defeating to even discuss in general terms that the term has any semantic resembling Jesus or his teaching. Islamics only try to make the comparison to justify the absurdity that they have the right to selectively “Love God” without also “Loving Neighbor”. These two commands are INSEPERABLE since God joins himself to HUMANITY as a partner through JESUS. GOD IS PRESENT IN THE LOVE OF NEIGHBOR. One can not kill their neighbor as an act of love for God! The definition of CHARITY is Love of God AND Love of Neighbor. Killing a neighbor is like trying to Kill God (and His children).

We judge a thing’s goodness by its fruit. Islam has born no good fruit. In 1400 years all it has done is sustained hatreds and contempt for is neighbors while self judging that it loves God. One can not force God to love him through violence! Islam does not love God by embracing violence. This is why Islamic lands are so violent and are in fact cursed in the same manner Jesus cursed the fig tree for not bearing good fruit. There can be no good fruits in any Islamic lands nor good blessings nor peace anywhere that lies are embraced and the sin of murder is justified in the name of Love of God.

The west is only tolerated by God because it permits God’s truth to be spoken and accepted or rejected. If the west becomes overly secular and starts actively persecuting Christians then it too will lose God’s protection and shared blessings.

James

Is that to say that you don’t approve of my use of the word Jihad the way I do?It’s also Peter Kreeft’s, you know!.. I don’t know if Hamba2han appoves it himself, though… but according to the definitions of Jihad, I believe Kreeft’s use of the word is correct… and is perfectly Christian in spirit.
Now, the word Allah isn’t just Islamic, it’s an Arabic word that pre-existed Islam! It’s probably the same thing with the word Jihad!!!
Any way to check this out?
God bless you all…
Denis

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Is that to say that you don’t approve of my use of the word Jihad the way I do?It’s also Peter Kreeft’s, you know!.. I don’t know if Hamba2han appoves it himself, though… but according to the definitions of Jihad, I believe Kreeft’s use of the word is correct… and is perfectly Christian in spirit.
Now, the word Allah isn’t just Islamic, it’s an Arabic word that pre-existed Islam! It’s probably the same thing with the word Jihad!!!
Any way to check this out?
God bless you all…
Denis

The “J” word is rather like the “N” word.

It can be used to great effect to startle, but it’s always a provocation to use it. I agree that “Jihad” can be narrowed to mean “helping pink bunnies by protecting them from the evildoing pitbulls who would eat them”, but moslems have so attached negative connotations to the word that any use of it necessitates a lot of work to get over the “What you say, honkie!?” reaction that invariably results.

 

[hamba2han]

This is the difference between Muslims and Christians when it comes to Jihad.

Muslims really do not see anything wrong at all regarding this kind of Jihad carried out by Prophet Moses (pbuh).

Christians, in stark contrast, see plenty wrong with this Jihad of Prophet Moses (pbuh) as described in their very own Bible.

If Christians are boldly proclaiming Jesus (pbuh) is the “Prophet like unto Moses”, then why won’t they listen to the things that he actually says in the Bible about fulfilling Mosaic laws?

Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Unlike Christians, Muslims do not have a problem at all accepting the things that Jesus (pbuh) said and did… even the things which are recorded in the Bible.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Is that to say that you don’t approve of my use of the word Jihad the way I do?It’s also Peter Kreeft’s, you know!.. I don’t know if Hamba2han appoves it himself, though… but according to the definitions of Jihad, I believe Kreeft’s use of the word is correct… and is perfectly Christian in spirit.
Now, the word Allah isn’t just Islamic, it’s an Arabic word that pre-existed Islam! It’s probably the same thing with the word Jihad!!!
Any way to check this out?
God bless you all…
Denis

For me personally and for a great many other peaceful Christians world wide - the term “Jihad” might as well be “anathema”. I recommend never using it in any Christian context.

I have almost as equal difficulty using the term “Allah” since Islam has so perverted the very revealed nature of God’s character and benevolence with its perverse image of God (through the widely known and profoundly vile character and behavior of Mohammad as well as through modern and recent Islamic atrocities) that Islam gives God a bad name. I think I can speak for a majority of Christians and say that the Arabization of God through the syntax of “Allah” conjures up for most of us an image of a violent and evil Kali like Indian-like false god who is hateful, petty, cruel, manipulative and more like the human nature of Mohammad than the pure and loving nature of Jesus.

I’d never give a blessing in “Allah’s” name to make it appear that I as being “sensitive” to the Arabic perspective since I really do not believe that God (the Father of Jesus) would choose to associate with the term nor that people who call him that name nor by the actions they embrace. This is not to say that God is not present in the capacity for “good” in all humans or in Arabs as a people. As a counter example I would never say “May Kali bless you” to an Indian out of respect to their culture and make the poor judgement assessment that it was the same God the Father of Jesus - certainly not while this false god’s followers promote murder.

Certainly let us say “May God Bless You”, or “May Yahweh Bless You” or “May Elohim Bless You” or “May Jesus Bless You” or “May The Lord Bless You” or “May The God of Abraham Bless You” or if we need to go further back - “May the God of Adam Bless You”. But when it comes to “Allah” I have a hard enough time extending the courtesy of even capitalizing the first letter of a proper name according to traditional rules of English grammar.

God Bless You,
James