Christianity and Islam: ANY similarities?

[Margim]

Oh come on. The context of the conversation was that I said there were too many objectionable references to Christianity's version of Jesus Christ in the New Testament for it to be of any use to them.

That is what we were discussing.

Then YOU said that there were such and such books that were acceptable to Muslims.

Then I went to those very books and showed you the EXTREMELY unacceptable things in those books, There were four you mentioned, Jude, Philemon, Philippians and Revelation.

Hence, your ORIGINAL concept that these books were void of conflicts in Islam is simply wrong.

The all had references to "Savior" "Holy Spirit" the flat-out declaration that Jesus is God, "resurrection" They ALL had at least one of these in them, some had many more (Philippians). I did not post all of them.

Bottom line, my contention that THE NEW TESTAMENT IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD to Muslims is absolutely CORRECT. You are still unwilling to accept that, for some unknown reason!

I never said those texts were void of conflicts. I'm sorry that I did not make that clear to you in my post. I will try to be clearer in future.

So again, my point was that those books did not mention the resurrection, of which you did claim that not one in the New Testament doesn't proclaim.

That said, I recognise my argument was a technical one... not so much against the point you were making (which is a fair one... I recognise the general absence of agreement between each book and Islam)... but the way in which you were making your argument (through emotive generalisation and hyperbole).

Now all that aside...

I do concede that the New Testament is not the word of God to Muslims. I never argued otherwise.

They do, however, consider it a holy, revealed text, which is what I have claimed. They believe in its holiness, despite its corruptions by humans. Thus, they regard its content with suspicion, but nevertheless provide a place for it within their tradition. 'Holy' means 'set apart'. 'Revealed' means 'imparting revelation of some kind'.

 

[SecretKnowledge]

__________________

They have appropriated (stolen) the Jewish religion for themselves, deleted the Hebrew names in the Old Testament and replaced them with their own ancestors in all the Old Testament stories. Likewise, they claimed the Temple Mount, the only holy site of the Jews in the entire world. Mohammed never even visited Jerusalem. The city of Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Koran at all.

Again, here is a good site (it is NOT Christian) that shows how Islam truly came into being. I hope you guys read it, it tells the real story:

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/saudi-arabia/mecca-kaba.htm

http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

Here is an article showing Pre-Islamic Hindu, pagan beliefs, the rituals of which still remain in Islamic teachings:



You can read the rest at the above Hindu website.

All of these articles you posted are extremely interesting though some of the claims seem exaggerated and polemical. There does indeed seem to be influence from India in Islam and the Middle East. However on the issue of the crescent there is an alternate idea that the crescent derives from an attempt to copy a Byzantine design which dates back to Greek polytheism. The current architecture of mosques is based on Greek churches; originally they were modelled oncertain Middle Eastern religous buildings.

The circling seven times things one of those articles talked about is noteworthy for several reasons, one of them being due to the fact that the Dome of the Rock has been associated with circumbulation.

Although influence from Hinduism may have been present historians and other scholars such as Wansbrough, Gerald Hawting, Andrew Rippin and others note the fact that Christianity and Judaism were the most important sources. Many of them believe Islam originally greatly based itself on unorthodox versions of Christianity and Judaism that would have been quite common in the Middle East. It is important to realize though that the religion itself it changed over time and the current version is not identical with the original.


Wasn't the Dome of the Rock built to commerate the purported site of the sacrifice of Abraham's son? There have been proposals to build a new Jewish Temple without affecting the Dome of the Rock.


_____________________________________

The opinion of C.S. Lewis obtained from a Hindu site (may be of interest to many in this thread):


"For my own part, I have sometimes told my audience that the only two things really worth considering are Christianity and Hinduism (Islam is only the greatest of the Christian heresies, Buddhism only the greatest of the Hindu heresies. Real Paganism is dead. All that was best in Judaism and Platonism survives in Christianity)."
- C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, "Christian Apologetics"


Other intriguing issues:

The use of the terms "Islam" "Muslim", in their modern sense, were not used initially. "Believer" was much more frequent.

The early Umayyad dynasty has seemed quite anomolous to many historians. Their religious beliefs and practices have been discussed and disputed. The answer could lie in the fact that Islamic ideas were still fairly fluid at the time and not yet set in stone. The Hadiths, and thus Sharia, had not yet made an appearance. The status of the Hajj at this time is also difficult to confirm.

And: When did the Qibla actually change from Jerusalem to Makkah? Some historians have suggested that it was later than traditionally believed and for different reasons.....

 

[Katheryn]

This is from your post on page 5:

yep.


Quote:

Originally Posted by warpus

- Both believe that the Old Testament is the word of God


And the New Testament as well. Both are revealed texts, although Islam regards them as corrupted from their original truth. It is for this reason Allah revealed the Quran to Muhammad.

And my point was, and still is... and we keep getting off track on this point... that there is SO MUCH that is unacceptable to Muslims, that they would only be able to use about 10% of the New Testament.

I went back and looked again at these texts, Revelation, Philemon, Jude, Philippians, and within about 5 sentences into Revelation, it says Jesus rose from the dead. In Jude, in the second paragraph, it calls Jesus 'God', and mentions the saint's 'salvation'. At the end, it calls Jesus God, our Savior. Then, there are two references to the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. So there are 6 sentences that are totally at odds with Islamic beliefs in a Book that is one chapter and only 25 sentences.

Again, I didn't post it all, didn't look for it all, but I can... honestly, it is of no use theologically for Muslims.

 

[Katheryn]

All of these articles you posted are extremely interesting though some of the claims seem exaggerated and polemical. There does indeed seem to be influence from India in Islam and the Middle East. However on the issue of the crescent there is an alternate idea that the crescent derives from an attempt to copy a Byzantine design which dates back to Greek polytheism. The current architecture of mosques is based on Greek churches; originally they were modelled oncertain Middle Eastern religous buildings.

Interesting. Those are Hindu websites, and they do seem as indignant as people of the other religions that have been accused of being plagarized by Mohammed. There is much discussion about archeological finds of the pre-Islam Moon God, with the crescent moon as it's symbol. As they say in the Hindu site, archeology is forbidden now in the area, presumably because they have found evidence of the Hindu gods there. Condemnation for the Hindu religion is extremely heated by Muslims also, they are considered their worst enemy. Ansheem can tell you about that. He has been in this thread. I wish he would contribute more! He is from India and has knowlege of the Islam conquest there.

The circling seven times things one of those articles talked about is noteworthy for several reasons, one of them being due to the fact that the Dome of the Rock has been associated with circumbulation.

Really? I've never heard that. What else can you tell us about it? I did hear that there was trouble last week at the mosque during Eid.

Although influence from Hinduism may have been present historians and other scholars such as Wansbrough, Gerald Hawting, Andrew Rippin and others note the fact that Christianity and Judaism were the most important sources. Many of them believe Islam originally greatly based itself on unorthodox versions of Christianity and Judaism that would have been quite common in the Middle East. It is important to realize though that the religion itself it changed over time and the current version is not identical with the original.

In addition, it is also important to remember that the actual Christian message is very simple, short and complete. It leaves a large void of 'free will' of how a 'walk of faith' is to be accomplished. Most Christian doctrine has to do with what happens at conversion. At that point, it is basically a complete event. That leaves a question of "How, then, shall we live?" (Francis Shaeffer) This is a question that only a person - individually - can answer. Since upon reconciliation, a person is 'right with God' they are acceptable now and forever more, it certainly leaves much latitude in who we live. So, your remark of 'changing over time' and 'not identical with the original' is really unapplicable. How we express Christianity does indeed change over time, throughout the centuries, and from person to person, church to church. There are so few basics that Christianity is very flexible and people can truly have as many rules, or as few rules and rituals as they choose.

Still, we are sticklers on those basics, as you can see from those of us posting.

Wasn't the Dome of the Rock built to commerate the purported site of the sacrifice of Abraham's son? There have been proposals to build a new Jewish Temple without affecting the Dome of the Rock.

I think there is a story in one of the later Islamic texts about Mohammed ascending into heaven from there.
Al Aqsa
The Al Aqsa Mosque was built between 709-715 A.D. by Caliph al-Waleed, son of Abd el-Malik, the man who constructed the Dome of the Rock. It is located on the southern part of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It is thought to have been built over the ruins of the first Temple, built by King Solomon.

Al Aqsa — also spelled El Aksa — means "distant place" in Arabic. This term relates to a vision of Mohammed's Ascension to heaven described in the Koran and is in reference to Jerusalem's geographical location from Mecca.

Muslims consider the Al Aqsa Mosque to be Islam's third holiest shrine after Mecca and Medina.

The Al Aqsa Mosque has been rebuilt on several occasions due to earthquake damage and was also the site of the assassination of King Abdullah I of Jordan on July 20, 1951.

The opinion of C.S. Lewis obtained from a Hindu site (may be of interest to many in this thread):


"For my own part, I have sometimes told my audience that the only two things really worth considering are Christianity and Hinduism (Islam is only the greatest of the Christian heresies, Buddhism only the greatest of the Hindu heresies. Real Paganism is dead. All that was best in Judaism and Platonism survives in Christianity)."
- C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, "Christian Apologetics"

Well, that is a compliment, C.S. Lewis was quite brilliant!

Other intriguing issues:

The use of the terms "Islam" "Muslim", in their modern sense, were not used initially. "Believer" was much more frequent.

The early Umayyad dynasty has seemed quite anomolous to many historians. Their religious beliefs and practices have been discussed and disputed. The answer could lie in the fact that Islamic ideas were still fairly fluid at the time and not yet set in stone. The Hadiths, and thus Sharia, had not yet made an appearance. The status of the Hajj at this time is also difficult to confirm.

And: When did the Qibla actually change from Jerusalem to Makkah? Some historians have suggested that it was later than traditionally believed and for different reasons.....

Well, you seem very knowledgable. Please give us more! Give us your take on it!!

 

[Margim]

This is from your post on page 5:

Woops. Fair point there... my mistake . Nevertheless, God's word or not, they maintain it is a holy Book. Thus a grounds for similarity.

And my point was, and still is... and we keep getting off track on this point... that there is SO MUCH that is unacceptable to Muslims, that they would only be able to use about 10% of the New Testament.

Its not getting off track to say that 10% or not, they still recognise it.

Thus, a ground for similarity.

Thus, similarity.

Thus, to the initial question 'ANY similarities,'

The answer is 'Yes'.

---

 

[Field_Marshal]

Woops. Fair point there... my mistake . Nevertheless, God's word or not, they maintain it is a holy Book. Thus a grounds for similarity.



Its not getting off track to say that 10% or not, they still recognise it.

Thus, a ground for similarity.

Thus, similarity.

Thus, to the initial question 'ANY similarities,'

The answer is 'Yes'.

---

They dont recognise it! That would imly they believe it is correct which you stated they believe its corrupt.

 

[aneeshm]

All of these articles you posted are extremely interesting though some of the claims seem exaggerated and polemical. There does indeed seem to be influence from India in Islam and the Middle East. However on the issue of the crescent there is an alternate idea that the crescent derives from an attempt to copy a Byzantine design which dates back to Greek polytheism. The current architecture of mosques is based on Greek churches; originally they were modelled oncertain Middle Eastern religous buildings.

The circling seven times things one of those articles talked about is noteworthy for several reasons, one of them being due to the fact that the Dome of the Rock has been associated with circumbulation.

Although influence from Hinduism may have been present historians and other scholars such as Wansbrough, Gerald Hawting, Andrew Rippin and others note the fact that Christianity and Judaism were the most important sources. Many of them believe Islam originally greatly based itself on unorthodox versions of Christianity and Judaism that would have been quite common in the Middle East. It is important to realize though that the religion itself it changed over time and the current version is not identical with the original.

The best that can be said about this is that the Hindus recognised the Kaaba to be a place of worship . There are references to people from Gujarat going on voyages to Arabia and worshipping in the Kaba . The Kaba , before Islam , was an inclusive place , where many deities were worshipped . It is quite plausible that , due to India's mighty cultural influence , some Indian deities were also included there . Religions where idols are used as a means of focusing the attention on God all share a certain affinity with each other , such as Buddhism , Hinduism , Shintoism , and all others of this type . That is why people from such religions do not go around destroying or appropriating other people's places of worship , as Mohammed did .

The best piece of information which I could find on this is this .

The great irony ( and tragedy ) here lies in the fact that the Hindus sanctified and gave to the Muslims one of the Muslims' holy places , but the Muslims tried to destroy the Hindus' holy places .

The opinion of C.S. Lewis obtained from a Hindu site (may be of interest to many in this thread):


"For my own part, I have sometimes told my audience that the only two things really worth considering are Christianity and Hinduism (Islam is only the greatest of the Christian heresies, Buddhism only the greatest of the Hindu heresies. Real Paganism is dead. All that was best in Judaism and Platonism survives in Christianity)."
- C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, "Christian Apologetics"

Buddhism was not only the greatest heresy , it was also the greatest fulfilment of the ideals of Hinduism . The Buddha is recognised an an enlightened man by Hindus today . That is precisely why Buddhism could not survive , and was re-absorbed into Hinduism later .

As for paganism being dead - that's absolutely correct . Hinduism is slowly becoming more and more philosophical , and at the same time more and more assertive .

Most people do not understand that Hinduism was never "pagan" in the sense the word is understood today .

At the highest level were the philosophers , who were completely unconcerned with idols or anything to do with them .

The next level were the priests , who knew both philosophy and the theology behind the idol , and could reconcile both .

At the next level were the educated public , who used the idol as a means of focusing their attention on God - as a form of worship .

And lastly , there was the uneducated public , who believed that the idol , though not God itself , was a limited manifestation of divinity , and thus , even if unintentionally , used it the way the educated public did , and the way it was meant to be used .

 

[aneeshm]

Interesting. Those are Hindu websites, and they do seem as indignant as people of the other religions that have been accused of being plagarized by Mohammed. There is much discussion about archeological finds of the pre-Islam Moon God, with the crescent moon as it's symbol. As they say in the Hindu site, archeology is forbidden now in the area, presumably because they have found evidence of the Hindu gods there. Condemnation for the Hindu religion is extremely heated by Muslims also, they are considered their worst enemy. Ansheem can tell you about that. He has been in this thread. I wish he would contribute more! He is from India and has knowlege of the Islam conquest there.

Mohammed arrived at the ( correct ) conclusion that God is one , but derived from it the ( wrong ) injunction that therefore , all other Gods were false .


The Muslim thought process :

1) God is one
2) Therefore , all other Gods are false

The Hindu thought process

1) God is one
2) Therefore , all other Gods ( and things that are worshipped ) are manifestations of that one God





The first way leads to iconoclasm and destruction , as happened in India ( as given here , here , here , and here ) .

The second leads to a tremendous tenacity and creative regenerative capacity , as displayed by Hinduism in India and Bali ( note the construction of the Akshardham temple in Delhi last year - the details of construction are mind-boggling ) ( Muslims managed to wipe out all other religions in their conquered territories - the two exceptions that provide hope are Spain and India ) .

 

[Quasar1011]

The Muslim thought process :

1) God is one
2) Therefore , all other Gods are false

The Hindu thought process

1) God is one
2) Therefore , all other Gods ( and things that are worshipped ) are manifestations of that one God

The Jewish thought process:
1) God is one
2) Therefore, all other gods are idols

1st Chronicles 16:26
"For all the gods of the nations are idols, but Jehovah made the heavens."

Deuteronomy 6:4
"Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one."

 

[aneeshm]

The Jewish thought process:
1) God is one
2) Therefore, all other gods are idols

1st Chronicles 16:26
"For all the gods of the nations are idols, but Jehovah made the heavens."

Deuteronomy 6:4
"Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one."

I sincerely do not understand what this means .

 

[C~G]

You are applying a liberal, humanistic, concept here, using relativism, which is not an appropriate logical argument in religion. There is no such thing as relativism in religion. Either you believe it or you don't. Either you are a "believer" or you are not. There is no almost-a-Christian, a sort-of conversion doesn't exist. For a Christian, there is no such thing as ignoring what the Bible says. Either you believe the Bible or you don't.

There's no relativism in discussion about theology and religion in general?

Please, Katheryn, you are mocking yourself here.
This world is full of christians with different kind of views about the Bible or are you saying that those who see the Bible differently than you aren't Christians?
Believing into something example to Jesus Christ doesn't mean you accept everything about christianity and same goes to believing into Islam.

There are numerous different interpretarions about the Bible and Quran which are used as general guidelines for living on earth. They are set of rules, moral codes and social norms that people must follow in order to be considered to be "believer" from the clergy point of view and clergy holds the control over that interpretarion in most cases. Because of circumstances christianity has lately given chance for invidual himself for the interpretarion and that's why some christians even accept homosexuality example. This was one of the points made by protestants however as history shows they didn't follow this path since they still wanted to control people in society by using church as tool for their mundane needs.

Nevertheless, as a Christian, I will stand for the TRUTH, just as Jesus told us to do. Sorry if you do not like that.

Problem here is that Jesus probably never taught anyone about Islam, so you cannot ever considerer telling the TRUTH about Islam based into your own interpretarion of the Bible.
All you can give is your own and one interpretarion of the Bible.

I sincerely do not understand what this means .

I think it means that the thought process in judaism is very close as being same as in Islam.

They dont recognise it! That would imly they believe it is correct which you stated they believe its corrupt.

Meaning in this occasion is that it has errors and they may still hold certain thing about it true. So it's partly the truth but not the whole truth, therefore it's "corrupted".

 

[El_Machinae]

Christians give the apostle's writings more infallibility than Muslims do.

Aneesh: Quasar's point was that Jewish thought process regarding Hinduism is the same as the Muslims.

 

[Mytigodess]

- Followers of both religions believe in the same God
- Both religions are monotheistic
- Both claim to trace their origins back to the same person (Abraham)
- Both believe in the second coming of Jesus
- Both believe in the soul
- Both believe that after death, a person's soul is judged by God
- Both believe that the Old Testament is the word of God

I think most followers of Islam would disagree with the first two points. They believe that most Christians view Jesus as God and that Christians have more than one God as they believe in a trinity.

Muslims do not believe in the second coming of Jesus in the same way as Christians, but believe in a return of the prophets. However, not all Muslims believe in the return at all.

Aside from that, I believe, as a non-believer of religion, that both stem from the Hebrew-seed religion that spread from that area and all three have many similarities. As such, I cannot make a real case for any of them being different because they all rest on the premise that God made man, man screwed up, and man must constantly make it up to God because they are not perfect.

Because all of these religions have a premise that God is not accepting of His own creation as is and there are conditions to His love, that makes such a God an extortionist [you must do exactly what I say and love me with your whole heart or end up eternally damned].

It is because they all have God with conditional love that they need all of these artificial rules to appease an angry God that has not spoken to His people in thousands of years. All of these nitpicking laws is what has caused a lot of division, hatred, and anger between people all claiming to love the same God.

My children often play rough between each other and vie for attention from my husband and me. Instead of letting them tough it out, we step in and reassure them of our love. Where is the God of the big 3 religions?

If my children were to get into the poison I told them over and over again not to touch and drank it anyway, I would rush them to an emergency room to save their lives. The God of the big 3 told Adam and Eve not to touch the fruit or they would die and he let them die.

My children have done bad things. Of course I punish them and send them to their room for a short time and then let them come out to reassure them of my love. The God of the big 3 will punish not only the sinner, but the generations of them to follow and cannot forgive some so will condemn them to eternal damnation.

All the big 3 believe God is the one to decide life therefore things such as suicide, abortion, murder, and euthanasia are tenants all would agree on some level are unforgiveable sins. Yet, when it comes to serving their own ends, some within these organisations will bend the rules and quote some ancient text to support what they are doing [suicide bombings, therapeutical abortion, pulling out a feeding tube, acts of war in the name of God...]

And on the topic of the extreme people in the big 3, if their God is so powerful, why do these people feel the need to step in for God instead of letting Him do his own work???

God have the Hebrew people the land, but when they became corrupt took it away. He gave it back to them and then when they acted up gave it away again. I don't recall a big rumble in the clouds with God leading the way giving it back to them last time. Man gave it to them, not God.

Suicide bombings?? The ultimate act of deciding life and death which is supposed to be their God's job.

As you can tell, I am not a big fan of any of these religions.

 

[Bast]

Minor similarities shared mainly through the roots shared with Judaism. But there are major differences.

For one, the idea of Jesus dying on the cross to save mankind from sin is fundamental to Christian belief. Muslims don't believe this. I don't know how they can share major similarities.

There are only minor similarities like belief in Moses and creation etc... That's it.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Christianity:
One God, manifestations on earth (i.e; Jesus, Holy Spirit)
Hell/Heaven
The selfless obeying of the Ten/Two Commandments
Culture

Islam:
One God
Heaven/Hell?
Five Pillars of Faith
Culture

Hinduism:
One God (many manifestations through other deities)
Reincarnation
Culture / obligated tradition?


That's about it. Culture is what makes them completely different. Even Syariah law could be superseded if the culture sought to it.

 

[Katheryn]

There's no relativism in discussion about theology and religion in general?

Please, Katheryn, you are mocking yourself here.

You only think so because someone taught you to think so.

And, you only believe it is mockery to believe otherwise because someone taught you that humanism is superior. Have you never questioned that? Have you never wondered that it is possible that there is such a thing as unwavering truth? What is truth? Jesus was asked that question, too.

You sound like cynical Pilate who said, "What is truth?"

I'm very glad that I don't have to ask that question.

 

[Katheryn]

Minor similarities shared mainly through the roots shared with Judaism. But there are major differences.

For one, the idea of Jesus dying on the cross to save mankind from sin is fundamental to Christian belief. Muslims don't believe this. I don't know how they can share major similarities.

There are only minor similarities like belief in Moses and creation etc... That's it.

Exactly. The minor similarities that you mention are similarities with JEWISH beliefs, really. Many Chrisitans do not believe in a literal creation, either.

There are any similarities between Judaism and Islam. But only because Islam plagarized the Old Testament and substituted their own people for Hebrews. The New Testament, they do not believe at all.

 

[El_Machinae]

Exactly. The minor similarities that you mention are similarities with JEWISH beliefs, really. Many Chrisitans do not believe in a literal creation, either.

How about the water into wine? Do most Christians believe that this literally happened?

Do most Christians believe that Jesus actually endorsed Moses's writings?

 

[Field_Marshal]

Meaning in this occasion is that it has errors and they may still hold certain thing about it true. So it's partly the truth but not the whole truth, therefore it's "corrupted".

Thats still bad! They are saying we are corrupt! From what I hear muslims dont want anything to do with Christianity. Thats why they changed so many things just so they wont sound Christian.

 

[Katheryn]

This world is full of christians with different kind of views about the Bible or are you saying that those who see the Bible differently than you aren't Christians?
Believing into something example to Jesus Christ doesn't mean you accept everything about christianity and same goes to believing into Islam.

There are numerous different interpretarions about the Bible and Quran which are used as general guidelines for living on earth. They are set of rules, moral codes and social norms that people must follow in order to be considered to be "believer" from the clergy point of view and clergy holds the control over that interpretarion in most cases. Because of circumstances christianity has lately given chance for invidual himself for the interpretarion and that's why some christians even accept homosexuality example. This was one of the points made by protestants however as history shows they didn't follow this path since they still wanted to control people in society by using church as tool for their mundane needs.
Problem here is that Jesus probably never taught anyone about Islam, so you cannot ever considerer telling the TRUTH about Islam based into your own interpretarion of the Bible.
All you can give is your own and one interpretarion of the Bible.
I think it means that the thought process in judaism is very close as being same as in Islam.

We have talked about this ad finium in the "Questions for Christians" thread.

Christianity believe in a CORE set of beliefs, which are very simple, are listed in the Nicene Creed and are FOUNDATIONAL. If you do not believe these, then your house is built on SAND and if it rains, the sand will wash away. But if you build you home on the ROCK, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ, it will stand.

Everything else is a side issue and there is great latitude in interpretation of them. But the core cannot be anything but THE ROCK OF JESUS CHRIST.

From the other thread:

Quote:
Quote:
What the Nicene Creed does is just bring together the basics of Chrisitianity, none of which are disputed by Christians:

There are no Christian sects that reject the basics of the Nicene Creed.

Again, the belief that Jesus was God, He died for you sins, rose from the dead, is at the right hand of the Father is what DEFINES a Christian. I didn't make it up, it was done in 325 AD.

If someone rejects the Christian gospel, that is their choice. Of course, they are free to do so.

I'm not sure why you are denying the fact that there is a definition of Christianity. Why wouldn't there be?