Christianity and Islam

Originally posted by sonhouse
The trinity thing I did not know, just shows to go you how things get perverted from the original. Lets face it, its a perverted religion.
What concept can be more chilling and quite deliberatly so, than telling a child they are BORN into sin, so the poor uneducated child of 2000 years ago gets totally brainwashed by his parents who were brainwashed before him.

So tell me, do you know anyone who is sinless? As Christ would say, anyone here without sin cast the first post.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I agree with you in part. Although the current christianity is mainly based on Pauls teachings, Paul himself never belived that Jesus was GOD or even claimed that. He was not beliving in Trinity. Trinity appeared 200 years after Paul.[/b]

So you are into Pauls writings are you. Do you then agree with this scripture?

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ, (by grace you are saved); and has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding reiches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Jesus Christ. For by grace you are saved through faith; and not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.

If you are a follower of Mohammads teachings then the answer would be no, you do not agree with Pauls teachings concerning salvation. Therefore, why bring Pauls teachings up in regards to the teaching of the trinity?

Here are a few implicit passages that refer to the trinity in Pauls letters. In 1 Corinthians 2:2-5 and 6:11 and 12:4-6 and 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and Galations 4:6, and Ephesians 2:18-22 and 3:14-19 and Ephesians 4:4-6 and Colossians 1:6-8 and 1 Thessalonians 1:3-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 and Titus 3:4-6 the reader is encouraged to read each of these passages and note how God (Father), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are brought together as instruments of our salvaion. Granted, the word "trinity" is never mentioned, however, I say draw your own conclusions. Especially in light of Christ's own commandment in Matthew 28:19 when he told his disciples to go into all the world and teach in the name of the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost. If he is merely a man, who does he think he is? Also, why did they crusify him for blashpemy (ie claiming to be the Son of God)? Why did his disciple Thomas refer to him as his Lord and his God? Why did Christ say that before Abraham was I am? Again I say, draw your own conclusions.

I know we have discussed this in length in times past, so I don't think discussing it any further will change much. I will simply say that I am a follower of the teachings of the Bible whose focus is on Christ and his sacrifice for all of mankind and you are a follower of the teachings of Mohammad. To say otherwise I think would be disingenous.

Originally posted by whodey
So tell me, do you know anyone who is sinless? As Christ would say, anyone here without sin cast the first post.

As Christ would say, anyone here without sin cast the first post.
do you know , I have read a paper talking about this story, when Jesus said , "Anyone here without a sin through her with a stone".

The summary is that this story doesn't exist in the early versions of the Gospel and is not found in the writings of the early church people.

------------------------

As I said in the other thread , a baby died at the edge of 5 months is sinless, isn't he?

Originally posted by whodey
So you are into Pauls writings are you. Do you then agree with this scripture?

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ, (by grace you are saved); and has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. are a follower of the teachings of Mohammad. To say otherwise I think would be disingenous.

I don't want to appear like attacking you again. As you noticed I hardly write here now. So forgive me if I appeare so aggressive or something. I really didn't mean it.

In never said I follow Paul, of course I don't. You are right it is paul who tought the idea of salvation through the death of Jesus. But is this the teaching of Jesus? I don't think so. Jesus teaching about salvation was totally different. Jesus tought that salvation is through repent and asking forgivness from GOS. He described the eternal life as beliving in the only one GOD, and to belive that he was sent by him, Jn.17.3. While Paul was teaching that Jesus Blood was enough for every one. So I choose to follow Jesus not Paul in this. Although Paul clearly belived that there is only one GOD. And he is not Jesus. See, cor1.8.4, Tm1.2.5.

In 1 Corinthians 2:2-5 and 6:11 and 12:4-6 and 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and Galations 4:6, and Ephesians 2:18-22 and 3:14-19 and Ephesians 4:4-6 and Colossians 1:6-8 and 1 Thessalonians 1:3-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 and Titus 3:4-6 the reader is encouraged to read each of these passages and note how God (Father), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are brought together as instruments of our salvaion. Granted, the word "trinity" is never mentioned, however, I say draw your own conclusions.

Cor1.2.2-5 I didn't find it there.
-----------------------------------
Cor1.6.11, it is clear that Paul differentiate between Jesus and GOD. Jesus was called lord, not GOD. Only the Father was called GOD in the whole Bible. Jesus was never called GOD, he was always called LORD. Which is more close to Master or Teacher. Actually when translated to Arabic it was translated "Rab", which means Master, not "Elah", which means god. In Hebrew it will be Rabbai, which is clear. So Paul did belive that Jesus is a Master, or a Teacher, but not GOD, and I agree with him.
--------------------------------------
Cor1.12.4-6: Same as before, LORD, not GOD.
--------------------------------------
Cor2.1.20 , do you find trinity there?

----

I can go through all of them, but you already summarized it:
Granted, the word "trinity" is never mentioned, however, I say draw your own conclusions.

That is true, it is all up to conclusions. And that is the problem. Paul writings need conclusions to infer the trinity from it, but trinity is not there. So if my conclusions was aganist trinity (I think there is no strong verse that could derive me otherwise), then why do you think I will be wrong, or not following Jesus. So far I didn't find a reason?

Wait , there is still Matthew 28.19:

This verse would have beem very interesting if it was true. But I have read another paper that says this verse was added to the gospel of Matthew in the 2nd century to support the concept of trinity. It doesn't exist in the Hebrew Gospel.

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html

And the most important part the verse say:

(KJV)(Matthew)(Mt-28-19)(Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost)

no student followed this teaching. No student baptized with name the Father, son, and the Holy Ghost. They were all baptizing with the name of Jesus.

I will simply say that I am a follower of the teachings of the Bible whose focus is on Christ and his sacrifice for all of mankind and you are a follower of the teachings of Mohammad. To say otherwise I think would be disingenous.

You are correct, I never said I follow the Bible or Paul, I said I follow Prophet Jesus teachings (some of them found in the Bible), which I belive are the same as those of Prophet Muhammed's Teachings.

So we agree 🙂🙂

Edit:
check this link, this main was the first one who introduced the concept of Trinity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

Originally posted by whodey
Not at all. After all, you don't believe in God. However, if God were to prove himself as existing.........I suppose that that would be the gun to your head.

Let me get this straight. Christians say that God is holding a gun to my head but I don't actually believe it. But if I was to become a Christian then immediately I would believe that there is a gun pointed at my head.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Let me get this straight. Christians say that God is holding a gun to my head but I don't actually believe it. But if I was to become a Christian then immediately I would believe that there is a gun pointed at my head.

It is an invisible gun so you either believe it is there or you do not.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I don't want to appear like attacking you again. As you noticed I hardly write here now. So forgive me if I appeare so aggressive or something. I really didn't mean it.

In never said I follow Paul, of course I don't. You are right it is paul who tought the idea of salvation through the death of Jesus. But is this the teaching of Jesus? I don't think so. who introduced the concept of Trinity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

In all honesty ahosyney, it is not just the teaching of the "trinity" that I have trouble with in reference to the teachings of Mohammad. It also revolves around other teachings such as the teaching that Christ was never really was crusified and never was really resurrected. I find myself at a loss in these teachings especially in light of having read all four gospels as well as the Pauline letters and Peters letters and Johns account in Revelation. I am afraid Mohammad is "outgunned" in such theology to say the least. Not only that, Isaiah would also disagree I am afraid in chapter 53 as he describes in detail how the Messiah would suffer and die. I am not really sure how Mohammad could get such a reading. The trouble is, I think, is that the death of
Christ and his subsequent ressurection creates theological problems for Mohammad if he were to accept Christ as anything more than a prophet. Why would God allow him to be crusified? Why would Christ then be raised from the dead three days later? These are uncomfortable questions to answer to say the least if one were to claim that Christ just an ordinary prophet. And if Christ were more than a prophet, who was he? Jehova's Witnesses tackle this problem and say that he is the archangel Michael??!!?!? Crazy huh? They too say that the Bible is the inspirired word of God and they too say it has been "tampered" with and they too wrote their own Bible to make the necessary "corrections". Sound familiar? Granted, the Bible does not specifically say that Christ is not Micahel but then again, it also does not say that he was not actually a little green man from planet Zenurius either.

To sum up, I cannot trust a man who perverts scripture in such a way. I think it is disingenuous for anyone to read the Bible and say that Christ was never crusified nor resurrected. In fact, there are other histoircal evidences outside the Bible that point to Christ being crusified. Believe what you will, believe the Quran above all else if you will. That is your choice.

Originally posted by whodey
In all honesty ahosyney, it is not just the teaching of the "trinity" that I have trouble with in reference to the teachings of Mohammad. It also revolves around other teachings such as the teaching that Christ was never really was crusified and never was really resurrected. I find myself at a loss in these teachings especially in light of having read all f ...[text shortened]... ieve what you will, believe the Quran above all else if you will. That is your choice.

Sometimes, I don't like the attacking tune in your writing. Here I was not in the position to attack, or preach. I was answering a simple question. And I answered it according to my faith, and according to what I understand from the Bible. Any I don't think you disagreed with me in any point I presented before.

Talking about the teaching of crucifiction of Jesus and his ressurection, not only Prophet Muhammed who claimed that. Many sects in the early Christianity adopted this theology too. I will not try extract evidences from the four gospels that support my faith, but all what I can say , given that there was almost 200 gospels were existing by 325 and only 4 of them , selected, and the others destroied, you can't by any mean claim that you have the complete truth. Did you read the orther 200 Gospels?

Did you notice that 85% of the new tastement could be referenced to Paul? Does this tell you anything?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quran and Prophet Muhammed didn't deny the crucifiction itself. I belive that someone was crucified and died. So you the teaching simply doesn't denay a know historical fact. It simply see it from another point of view.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Talking about Isea 53, do you think this matches Jesus. This chapter is talking about a servant to GOD. Is Jesus a servant to GOD?

I think you should start from Is.52.13. Was Jesus despised?

Read this:
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

I don't think this matches Jesus at all. He died with wicked and his grave was with the rich , not the reverese.

I don't know how do you ignore this?
--------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up, I cannot trust a man who perverts scripture in such a way. I think it is disingenuous for anyone to read the Bible and say that Christ was never crusified nor resurrected. In fact, there are other histoircal evidences outside the Bible that point to Christ being crusified. Believe what you will, believe the Quran above all else if you will. That is your choice.

🙂 I never expected you to say that. Specially while you belive in Trinity and it is not mentioned in the Bible a single time. How can I trust a faith that it is main law of faith doesn't exist in its Holy Book.
------------------------------------

Originally posted by sonhouse
The trinity thing I did not know, just shows to go you how things get perverted from the original. Lets face it, its a perverted religion.
What concept can be more chilling and quite deliberatly so, than telling a child they are BORN into sin, so the poor uneducated child of 2000 years ago gets totally brainwashed by his parents who were brainwashed before him.

St. Augustine's morbid views have more to do with the original sin stuff than the Gospels, to be honest. He was an incredibly influential man...and wholly of his times, so it's unfair to bash him!

Originally posted by ahosyney
Sometimes, I don't like the attacking tune in your writing. Here I was not in the position to attack, or preach. I was answering a simple question. And I answered it according to my faith, and according to what I understand from the Bible. Any I don't think you disagreed with me in any point I presented before.

Talking about the teaching of crucifiction main law of faith doesn't exist in its Holy Book.
------------------------------------

Sorry if I offended you. I need to be more careful about how I word things because I know you hold dear the teachings of Mohammad and the prophet himself. At the same time, however, I must speak what I think is the truth just as you do. It is a balancing act to say the least.

As far as agreeing with you in your other post, I would say that the problim is understanding the three in one theology. How can the Son pray to the Father and still be one person? I would compare it to talking to yourself. Everyone does it but why? Could it be we were made in God's image who does the same?

As far as other gospels go you are correct. There are a myraid of heretical gospels floating around out there. Most of them to my knowledge are knostic in origin. I would even include the Bible of Mormon and Bible of Jehova's witnesses to be amongst them as I am sure you would as well. In fact, if the Bible is correct in that there is a deciever who is attempting to extract the truth from us I would expect nothing but the mess we have today. The real question, however, is are the gospels in the Bible inspiried by God or are they part of the deception? I don't see how they could be both.

As far as Paul goes, however, he used to go around persecuting Christians and killing them. Can you imagine why? Is it because they were outraged at Christ being a prophet? What doctrine could be so heretical that he would go around killing Christians? Then the voice came down from above, "Saul, why do you persecute me?" and he was converted. Paul was, in fact, a very well learned man concerning the Torah. He was very articulate and very well read man. If he did pervert the early movement of the Christians it was done so with evil intent. However, when I read his writings I do not get this vibe from him. Also, you must not forget the book of Peter and Revelation. Perhaps John and Peter and Paul were all in cohoots in perverting their Lords message. Who is to say?

As far as Isaiah is concerned, Christ was despised and rejected of men. After all, he wound up the cross, did he not? In fact, Christ warned his followers of rejection and reminded them that if they encountered such rejection it stemmed from them rejecting Christ in them rather than rejecting them directly.

Originally posted by whodey
Sorry if I offended you. I need to be more careful about how I word things because I know you hold dear the teachings of Mohammad and the prophet himself. At the same time, however, I must speak what I think is the truth just as you do. It is a balancing act to say the least.

As far as agreeing with you in your other post, I would say that the problim i ...[text shortened]... ejection it stemmed from them rejecting Christ in them rather than rejecting them directly.

I don't mind you say the truth as you see it. It is just a feeling.

There are many points opened here. If you want to discuss them I prefere to pick them one by one until we finish with each point.

It is all up to you. Tell me if you want to continue.

Originally posted by whodey
So tell me, do you know anyone who is sinless? As Christ would say, anyone here without sin cast the first post.

That brings up one of the most sickening ideas of christianity, one not taught by jesus: original sin. Can you imagine the effect on a young mind when the priests or parents tell a child they are sinners just by being born. I condemn that idea with every cell in my body. It is just such despicable means that I detest about christianity. A blatant attack on a persons fundamental being to be accused of being in the state of sin just because they were born human? That is sick and if you can't see that you are lost forever. So tell that to my 4 month old beautiful grandaughter she is sinning just by being alive. That is one of the most disgusting concepts in your disgusting religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That brings up one of the most sickening ideas of christianity, one not taught by jesus: original sin. Can you imagine the effect on a young mind when the priests or parents tell a child they are sinners just by being born. I condemn that idea with every cell in my body. It is just such despicable means that I detest about christianity. A blatant attack on g just by being alive. That is one of the most disgusting concepts in your disgusting religion.

The question MUST be asked then, who is without sin if the theology is incorrect? That is, those who have reached the age of accountability. Name them if you wish.