Reverence of Christianity and Jesus in Islam (Threads merged)

[Mick in England]

We understand a couple of things about Paul. Prior to his conversion he was a cruel man who had been harsh to the Christians. As soon as he did become Christian the first thing he does is set up small ministries that he controlled through letters. In all this while he hasn't bothered with the story of Jesus nor does Archaeology reveal any evidence of one's existence. This was many years after Jesus's departure from the planet. So I'm guessing a story of Jesus Christ should've existed in between this time period.
But Christianity only records the gospels writen after Paul was persecuted himself when he decide to goto Rome to preach. With his persecution came a persecuted story of Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure what points you're trying to raise mate..
Paul was an okay guy in my book, he got serious hassle for going round spreading the gospel and never asked a penny for it -
2 Cor 11 - "I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again.
Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,
I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.
I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked.
Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches.
Who is weak, and I do not feel weak?"

 

[Awesome]

And again we therefore have to doubt the accuracy of the Koran writers

For what reason? You CAN doubt Muhammad and say he made it all up. But whatever he passed down to the Muslims still exists in its exact form.

Mark on the other hand, the first gospel writer, is not even an eye-witness to the life of Jesus. Mark's account is nothing more than heresay, don't you think? Mark's account comes at around 70 AD. After Paul's persecution and then ultimately facing the terror of persecution himself. He deems this authority onto himself to author the story of Jesus.

Lemme merge of this thread with that of reverence. Kind of heading in the same directions.

 

[Mick in England]

For what reason? You CAN doubt Muhammad and say he made it all up. But whatever he passed down to the Muslims still exists in its exact form.

I'm not saying Mohammed made anything up, I'm simply saying that the people who wrote down his words might have misunderstood or changed them.
That's what you say happened with Jesus, therefore it can apply to Mohammed too

 

[Mick in England]

Mark on the other hand, the first gospel writer, is not even an eye-witness to the life of Jesus. Mark's account is nothing more than heresay, don't you think?

But why would he want to lie?? He was a well-educated rich man from a prominent family, so why would he risk losing all that by becoming a Christian and suffering persecution from the Romans and the snooty Jewish priests?
We know he was a friend of Jesus's righthand man Peter and wrote down all Peter told him. Later he helped Paul spread the word..
Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), a disciple of Peter (1 Peter 5:13) a helpful co-worker of Paul (2 Timothy 4:11), and he wrote his gospel c.60AD His mother was one of the Marys (Acts 12:12) from an influential and probably wealthy family, and so some speculated that the last supper was held in their home and that he was the young man in Mark 14:51-52.

 

[araz]

Two of the gospel-writers were actual disciples (Matthew and John), so I think their credibility as eyewitnesses is pretty good

As for the claim that the Bible has been altered over the centuries, if that was true why are there so many jarring contradictory bits left in it?
Wouldn't the alterers have edited them out to make the Bible look all neat and tidy?
No, the Bible came down to us warts and all without being tampered with, and that speaks volumes for its authenticity..

My friend . If Bible has not been altered, why are there differences in the oldest appearing version of Bible in Greek in the British Museum and todays Bible. As regards your claim. Your own clergy claims that Bible is somewhere within the 4 books. Your Clergy is trying to wriggle out of the Homosexual and lesbian Issue in clear contravention of the teachings of your own book. It has ordained women priestess, again in contravention of the Laws of your Book. Please get your facts right first and then come and argue your point. Go to the British Museum and see the Greek version and ask if there is an exact translation of that book in English. If not, ask WHY? Ask if the words Hotheos and Pantheos were used in the worse, "He is the Father and I am the son , I am the light of His light"( or something very close to it). Check the meanings of these words and then come and talk to us. Please dont misunderstand me. I only contribute to try and show people an alternate route to their logic. The fact remains that nobody can deny that the Bible has not undergone changes, rather strategic ones to serve the churches interest. I look forward to your reponse.
Araz

 

[araz]

For what reason? You CAN doubt Muhammad and say he made it all up. But whatever he passed down to the Muslims still exists in its exact form.

I'm not saying Mohammed made anything up, I'm simply saying that the people who wrote down his words might have misunderstood or changed them.
That's what you say happened with Jesus, therefore it can apply to Mohammed too

And yet there is only one Quran. A Book that resembles exactly, word for word, letter for letter, Aeraab to Aeraab(Iam sorry Idont know the exact translation of this arabic word, I think it is accent). Pretty good copying dont you think. What you dont understand is that the Quran is Gods book and He has taken responsibility for its injtegrity and intactness, not some Human being.
Araz

 

[Mick in England]

My friend . If Bible has not been altered, why are there differences in the oldest appearing version of Bible in Greek in the British Museum and todays Bible.
Your Clergy is trying to wriggle out of the Homosexual and lesbian Issue in clear contravention of the teachings of your own book. It has ordained women priestess, again in contravention of the Laws of your Book.

1 - Any book - whether its the Bible or the Koran - may lose something when translated into English because some words Arabic or Greek have no direct English equivalent..

2 - Gays/ lesbians are in danger of hell, the Bible says so. Wriggling clergy aren't important and can be ignored..

3 - Paul laid down rules to stop some noisy yapping women disrupting early church meetings, but elsewhere he's full of praise for women. There have been women preachers in Christianity right from the early days.
"In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. On my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will speak." (Joel 2:28-32)
In fact there have always been special women in the Bible -
Miriam who saved her baby brother Moses from death when she was just a child;
Deborah, prophetess, judge and military leader;
Huldah who taught at the college in Jerusalem.;
Rahab the prostitute who sheltered the two fugitive Israelis,
The evangelist Philip had four daughters who were prophetesses;
The early Christian sect in Phrygia was led by Montanus and two prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla....etc

 

[A.Rahman]

Mick what are you trying to prove? We are going in circles and most your questions have been already answered.

 

[Mick in England]

Mick what are you trying to prove? We are going in circles and most your questions have been already answered.

Yes I've been wondering what I'm doing here myself
Muslims have rejected Jesus as the Son of God and it's none of my business, there's nothing more for me to say on this board, bye everybody

 

[EagleEyes]

He said he was son of god because how closely he was realted to God. He said he was the son of god, cause he had no real father. God created him differently than the others, in relation to that! He is son of the god, but not really an acutal son. Jesus said that there will be a praised one coming and that is Mohammad, who would clear all doubts, and will tell everything, and he will be the last one. Then jesus will come again in the end of the time, but still he wont be the last one, because he never died.

 

[A.Rahman]

He said he was son of god because how closely he was realted to God. He said he was the son of god, cause he had no real father. God created him differently than the others, in relation to that! He is son of the god, but not really an acutal son. Jesus said that there will be a praised one coming and that is Mohammad, who would clear all doubts, and will tell everything, and he will be the last one. Then jesus will come again in the end of the time, but still he wont be the last one, because he never died.

Every Muslim believes in Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). But Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was a great prophet and a messenger of God and NOT the son of God in any way. prophet Adam (peace be upon him) was born without a father nor a mother. But nowhere in Islamic or Christian sources is there reference to prophet Adam being the "son of God".

Therefore, one cannot be a Muslim and believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

one has to believe that he was a human being and when God ordained that Jesus shall be born, He (God) said "Be" and he (Jesus) was created.