Christianity and Islam: ANY similarities?

[Katheryn]

Both are obsessed with sexe, sodomy and virginity

Which proves you have never read the Bible.

 

[CartesianFart]

It upsets me that it is so important that the first and most important thing a Muslims does (the First Pillar) is to deny that God has a Son.

· Abu Hurairah reported Allah's Messenger (PBUH) as saying, "I am the nearest of kin to Jesus, son of Mary, in this world and the next. The prophets are brothers, sons of one father by co-wives. Their mothers are different but their religion is one. There has been no prophet between us". Hadith

When i look at this quote,i find it more plausible to believe in something outside of myself but can't find it possible that God had only one son.I think this attempt to make Jesus as one of the many lines of prophets are something to say of what is the logical way of stressing the "brotherhood" principle by making Jesus as a simple personality that is totally "human as much of the blessed prophets."Not some Godlike being.

 

[Katheryn]

Regardless of what Protestant Christians believe, Catholics are still Christians. So no they don't have more in common with Islam nor Buddhism. But I agree with Katheryn that Christianity is more in common with Buddhism than Islam. Buddha and Christ's teachings are very similar.

There have been heresies introduced into many churches, and some people accept them and some don't.

I have talked to many Catholics who will tell me this:

"We don't worship Mary, we don't think she is a co-Redeemer, that is a product of Vatican II, which many Catholics do not accept. We revere Mary and consider her blessed among all women, but we do not worship her, nor look to her for salvation".

Which, of course is the perfect answer.

What it truly comes down to is this:

If your airplane is coming down and you know it is your last two seconds, whose name do you call? Do you repeat the rosary? Do you call for Mary to save you? Or do you call upon Jesus?

If you have replaced your Lord and savior Jesus Christ with anyone else, you are in trouble. The same trouble as those in Romans 1.

 

[Katheryn]

When i look at this quote,i find it more plausible to believe in something outside of myself but can't find it possible that God had only one son.I think this attempt to make Jesus as one of the many lines of prophets are something to say of what is the logical way of stressing the "brotherhood" principle by making Jesus as a simple personality that is totally "human as much of the blessed prophets."Not some Godlike being.

Perhaps this will shed some light on why we think it possible that God had a Son. It is a prediction (prophecy) from the Old Testament:

Isaiah 59

1 Behold, Yahweh's hand is not shortened, that it can't save; neither his ear heavy, that it can't hear:

but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.
The way of peace they don't know; and there is no justice in their goings: they have made them crooked paths; whoever goes therein does not know peace.

Therefore is justice far from us, neither does righteousness overtake us: we look for light, but, behold, darkness; for brightness, but we walk in obscurity.

...We grope for the wall like the blind; yes, we grope as those who have no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the twilight; among those who are lusty we are as dead men.

...We roar all like bears, and moan sore like doves: we look for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.

For our transgressions are multiplied before you, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and as for our iniquities, we know them:

...transgressing and denying Yahweh, and turning away from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.

...He saw that there was no man, and was appalled that there was no intercessor: therefore his own arm brought salvation to him; and his righteousness, it upheld him.

...He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; and he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a mantle.

... "A Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from disobedience in Jacob," says Yahweh.

..."As for me, this is my covenant with them," says Yahweh. "My Spirit who is on you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, nor out of the mouth of your seed, nor out of the mouth of your seed's seed," says Yahweh, "from henceforth and forever."

And again in Jeremiah:

31 Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Yahweh.

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:

34 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

So, as you can see from these predictions in the Old Testament, which by the way is why Islam cannot accept them, it is all about what GOD is going to do. It is not about all the things we are going to do for GOD.

He says right there in the first passage that there is no one to intercede for mankind. No one to bring justice. So HE, HIMSELF must do it, must come and do it HIMSELF.

Again:

...He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; and he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a mantle.

... "A Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from disobedience in Jacob," says Yahweh.

Where does He come? To America? To London? No. He comes to Zion. To Jerusalem, bringing salvation.

Man is incapable of doing what needs to be done, so God came Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ.

And Islam denies this, specifically, five times a day. I think that is just creepy. Sorry.

 

[C~G]

Actually, secularism and relativism is basically a philosophy just like deism. And there are people, most actually, who believe in absolute truth. Some people believe that adultery is just wrong. It is absolute. And for you to say that they are stupid, uneducated or unsophisticated is just being judgmental.

I have never said such a thing.

People tend to create these kind of systems of morals and sometimes they might have nothing to do with the original message of religion at all.

This is something you usually do, "you don't have a relativistic worldview, therefor you are wrong." And you need to rethink that. I realized I believed in "absolute truth" while studying Aristotle in college, after being raised in an atheist home. Becoming a Christian was a done deal after that.

Wow.
For me it was just the opposite.
Even though my father has never been believer but I tried when I was young but it was a shoe that never fit me. And reading aristotle was the check point for me when I understood into what christian philosophy was based into.

I only asked you to have relativist worldview when regarding the question whether Islam and Christianity have similarities. Somehow in your mind you have only one absolute truth and nobody else that hasn't accepted Jesus as you do cannot ever be considered to have anything common with christianity.

I really don't know who 'those christians' are, but the Bible is very clear that once a person converts to Christianity, once they ascribe to the basic 'Jesus died for your sins' faith system, they are considered 'brethren'. The one and only rule that Jesus gave His people was to 'LOVE YOUR BROTHER'. So, again, you are quite mistaken if you think side issues in Christianity supercede that. Churches have separated over things like how do you baptise, dunk in water or sprinkle with water? If you want to be baptised and dunked, then go to the former church, it is really NO BIG DEAL!

It is big deal if we are comparing WHOLE christianity to WHOLE islam.

If we are comparing Jesus to Islam only then of course there are hardly any similarities at all. That is your problem since you seem to think that christianity ain't anything but about Jesus. The faith is of course based into those concepts given by Him but the religion such as christianity has a history and numerous other traditions that don't have anything to do with Jesus. Example from the old testament. You have yourself given this defence when I have asked why christians accept use of violence when Jesus doesn't.

You are talking about someone's invidual faith while I'm talking about the whole system of religion.

It would mean that they have NOTHING right. There is not ONE tenet of Islam that I can agree with, and yes I have studied it thoroughly since 9-11.

Probably some muslim think exactly the same way about Jesus, that christians didn't got anything right and they cannot agree about anything said about Jesus.
But there can be still similarities between religions even though believers don't see it that way.

The things that Islam have in common with JUDAISM are things that Christianity has accepted from Judaism. Those things have been taken from Judaism and then replaced with Islam. Therefore there is NOTHING that Islam and Christianity have in common. You can say, vaguely, that Oh, they both believe in God... but those concepts of WHO GOD IS, HOW HE ACTS, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO HIM, WHAT HE EXPECTS FROM HIS PEOPLE, WHAT HE HAS DONE, and WHAT HE PLANS TO DO IN THE FUTURE couldn't possible be more different.

Problem here is that you're reading bible directly while I also try to interpret the history of these religions, and looking back under those religions there have been similar habits.
Nowadays the differences are easier to spot since western culture has changed which even you have admitted and therefore christianity has mostly given up many things and mostly only one thing has remained, the love for Jesus Christ, even though I could still claim there are other parts are present as well through proxy of western culture itself.

My grudge against Islam is their murdering Christians all over the world, simply for the fact that they are Christians.
...
These cultures do not integrate. Islam demands submission from infidels. It is that simple.

And here we go again. Grudge and another rant.
Of course this all gives you quite good reasons to look for those differences rather than similarities, right?

I was talking about the general concept of 'humanism' which accepts the idea of 'relativism', which basically means there is no such thing as absolute truth. Obviously, Pilate was a humanist, who thought discussing 'truth' was futile, like many atheists in the world today - my brother included, who has a degree in Philosophy from Claremont College. We get into this quite a bit, it is a familiar discussion for me.

Well, absolute truth is bit hard to find in this case since we are talking about two huge religions. I find it's as much of error to say "yes" they don't have any differences and "no" they don't have any similarities. So there' s no absolute truth in that case, it entirely depends from viewpoint and since you concentrate into Jesus, I can see why you cannot find anything similar from Islam while I try to concentrate into other issues and find similarities or otherwise we cannot compared any religions together.

Again, I have taken a look at the different belief systems, and I believe in absolute truth, yes. That is a plumbline for me, yes. I don't think I will ever fall into the confusing and dark world of relativism, no. Too much hopelessness there, like in existentialism. No thank you.

You probably understand that for me this sounds all the time that your talk about "absolute truth" and how Islam is submissive is all about trying to convince people how Islam is evil and therefore christianity hasn't anything to do with Islam.

Yes, it is, and I'm not really sure how to explain this to an atheist, but to any Christian, the belief in Jesus Christ really is all there is. Sorry that you can't understand that. You can't have read the New Testament because if you had at least done that, you would at least realize how many times this is said, over and over again.

And does Jesus example accept adultery?

The problem occurs in this: AFTER this great event has happened, there is still a life to be lived. So then, How shall we live? There is not very much to go on in the Bible. Yes, you can look at the lives of people in the Old Testament and see parallels, glean principles, but bottom line: THESE STORIES SHOW THE FACT THAT GOD IS MERCIFUL and all forgiving. These are stories that have to do with men failing to come up to the mark. King David - had it all, but one day, out of boredom, he committed adultery, then covered it up with murder. He was very sorry, and yet he still married Bathsheb and their son, Solomon, became King instead of his older brothers. What kind of example to follow is this? Not so hot! But it does show God's overwhelming mercy and forgiveness to those who stray. You will find it very difficult to find a good example of a human being in the Old Testament, good luck! They all fall. But the good news is... God's mercy endures forever.

Christianity is about forgiveness and love : GOD'S FOR US, not ours for Him.

And Islam turns it around 180 and says, it is about OUR SUBMISSION to God, our good works for God.

This is irreconcilable.

You have to tell this those christians that say those that do against the bible go to hell.

they deny Jesus Christ has come into the world.
That is disturbing to a Christian.

And if I do the same?

I could say even more horrible things about Jesus and this somehow disturbs you?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

They are similar in some aspects, and different in others.

 

[Swedishguy]

Which proves you have never read the Bible.

OK, what about unimaginative, boring and unrealistic?

I have about five bibles at home so no comments there.

 

[Sidhe]

I have read Katheryns arguments before voting, I figured I should pay that respect, and in all honesty I can say that there are some minor differences and a few major ones, but not enough for me to say they are completely different religions. I'll side with the majority protestant, Catholic and Islamic view on this but please bear in mind I have read all of this thread and taken all points on board before voting. I quite agree they are not the same religion now in as much as they differ on key points. I find it absurd to suggest they are not the same God. And that there are few similarities though, and I take this view from historical presentations both in here and others I have read.

I would say though that in reading those books considered apocryhpal, I find as much resonance as in the new testament with Jesus' message and frankly accept that the bible has had alot of it's meaning whittled away from texts in both Greek and Aramaic, faith which seemed to be as grounded in contreveresy as the modern splinters of Christianity and Islam, in this respect I find much in modern faith to be a matter of interpritation of the time, with that in mind I find alot of Katheryns and others ideas to be specious and somewhat biased,being entirely interpritational and based on political interpritation throughout the ages, just as I find much of Islam to be politically interpreted and thus less than a representation than it might.

I acknowledge a fair few of Katheryns points, and particularly agree that Muslim society is backward as we term it, and needs to progress somewhat, although I do not agree on the reasons or the means to do this, finding it to be much more to do with politics than religion as she maintains. Her points about some Islamic cultures are fair representation too and well reasoned.

On the whole though, it is difficult to side with someone who has a very narrow view of the argument and agree with C~G that to really get a grip you need to look deeper than your own cultural bias or more relativistically, or at least try to. I somehow doubt that Katheryn has been honest in her interpritation, although unwittingly, but then she is a product of her culture, just as Muslims are, which is where the root of these divisions lie. Nicely introduced point about culture in this thread.

That said I will say that unfortunately the cultural implications and the warring between the two factions have driven a wedge between them, one that I see as hard to comprehend if you believe they are the same God: someone has to be right, but I see no evidence to believe that one faiths view is any more apposite than any other, in which I include all the faiths that acknowledge a Creator, including Hinduism, and Budhism which also acknowledges a source of creation but does not deify it.

I personally see none of the faiths as right, but all to have some truth, and as far as I can tell the reson for their truth is opinion, so I seee no reason to condone such views above others.

At the heart of the argument though is similarity, I find a core of similarity that runs deep to the heart of Judaism, and a wealth of cultural intepritation; fundementally though all that matters is they worship the same God,regardless of how much they want to corrupt it's message to suit there own ideas, and that goes for all faiths.

Though I'm not religous I find these following words to be a deal more revealing than some of the ancient texts I read. You could go a long way reading more than is in the bible than came to light at 300 or so AD, much was cut or altered, it's not without reason to think that no council had the knowledge to say which was right and which wrong and that books that have come to light later have no part in The Bible through sheer circumstance, as I said before much that was included is founded on a deal of division intepritation and politics of the councils of the time, I don't buy infallibility in any religion, and any man who claims he is without fault and his word is the truth is blasphemous, except God and Jesus which if they are the truth are beyond doubt, all others are mortal and subject to corruption, very few escaped it and certainly none in the last 1750 or so years.

Anyway:-

And Jesus himself sat down in their midst and said: "I tell you truly, none can be happy, except he do the Law."

And the others answered: "We all do the laws of Moses, our lawgiver, even as they are written in the holy scriptures."

And Jesus answered: "Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws from God in writing, but through the living word. The law is living word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves. For I tell you truly, all living things are nearer to God than the scripture which is without life. God so made life and all living things that they might by the everlasting word teach the laws of the true God to man. God wrote not the laws in the pages of books, but in your heart and in your spirit. They are in your breath, your blood, your bone; in your flesh, your bowels, your eyes, your ears, and in every little part of your body. They are present in the air, in the water, in the earth, in the plants, in th e sunbeams, in the depths and in the heights. They all speak to you that you may understand the tongue and the will of the living God. But you shut your eyes that you may not see, and you shut your ears that you may not hear. I tell you truly, that the scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in His works? And wherefore do you study the dead scriptures which are the work of the hands of men?"

Mind you even if this ancient text had come to light at the times I doubt it would have been included for obvious reasons. Like much of the Bible though it has as much reason to be valid as any other peice of text. Why should men or women decide the word of God and deny the rest, what makes one councils perception - divided by inter faith strife for many years by theological debate and politics - the true word?

In the same way why should we believe Katheryn or Civ General to know the truth? Or for that matter the Clerics of Islam or of Judaism or Protestantism or the orthodox or the other schisms?

 

[Katheryn]

C~G
Untouchable


Posts: 1,561 Quote:
Originally Posted by Katheryn
Actually, secularism and relativism is basically a philosophy just like deism. And there are people, most actually, who believe in absolute truth. Some people believe that adultery is just wrong. It is absolute. And for you to say that they are stupid, uneducated or unsophisticated is just being judgmental.

I have never said such a thing.

Oh, come on... you've called me this many times!

 

[C~G]

Oh, come on... you've called me this many times!

When?

You mean "stupid, uneducated or unsophisticated"?
I would be absolutely stunned if I would find myself saying such thing about anyone especially about you.

I earlier said that you are making mockery of yourself since you are more intelligent than you make appear to be by saying things what you believe sometimes (like in this thread about the lack of similarities).

 

[Katheryn]

OK, what about unimaginative, boring and unrealistic?

I have about five bibles at home so no comments there.

And as a fanatical atheist, you know what is in it? read it frequently? Hmm... OK, I'm supposed to believe that?

 

[Katheryn]

When?

You mean "stupid, uneducated or unsophisticated"?
I would be absolutely stunned if I would find myself saying such thing about anyone especially about you.

I earlier said that you are making mockery of yourself since you are more intelligent than you make appear to be by saying things what you believe sometimes (like in this thread about the lack of similarities).

There you go again, you are saying that I say things below my intellect.

That is like saying, "You don't mean that, you are too smart to believe that crap" which is the same thing in the long run.

 

[Swedishguy]

And as a fanatical atheist, you know what is in it? read it frequently? Hmm... OK, I'm supposed to believe that?

Yes you should! According to the Bible it is sinthful to go near a woman with menstruation. How do you take that? And it's sinthful for men to be longhaired, and I know one who was:

Spoiler :

Jesus!

 

[Princeps]

Which proves you have never read the Bible.

You claim (not that I believe) that you have "studied" Islam extensively after 9-11 and you have found no tenet to agree with - personally, I think you have not studied it at all, instead read articles and not taken them critically. You cannot accept that there are plentiful similarities between Islam and Christianity, not because you have read otherwise, but because you DON'T like it. Therefore you will vehemently argue otherwise, not with facts, but with your own opinions.

You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. I believe it is a fact that Islam and Christianity share much in morals, stories, rules and so on.

I have about five bibles at home so no comments there.

I have... let say... about 10 bibles in the house in which I life. The most recent one is from 2002, while the "oldest" is a an exact copy of a bible from the 1624 AD(iirc) written in old Finnish language - its a really heavy, dusty old book. Other bigger bibles are from the circa 1700 and 1800, and one is from the second ww. IIRC, i'm too lazy to check since I just came from the gym...

 

[C~G]

There you go again, you are saying that I say things below my intellect.

That is like saying, "You don't mean that, you are too smart to believe that crap" which is the same thing in the long run.

I see.

So giving compliment to a person how intelligent she is, is same as saying that person is "stupid, unsophisticated and uneducated". I was referring to your inability to see something else than the absolute truth in everything. Have you maybe thought that maybe some things don't require absolute truth or or the denial of it?
And then there are christians that read the bible from word by word and think it is the absolute truth. So which one is the absolute truth? Yours or theirs?

You don't have to deny the greatness of story of Jesus and his teachings if we compare the whole religion of christianity to Islam. I could had voted otherwise but because there are people like you that think christianity isn't anything but about Jesus then I decided to vote that there are few major similarities and numerous small ones. Example there's only one God whose message is given in book. It talks about God that is omnipotent and even though there are different characteristics I could quote someone here.

God, so atrocious in the Old Testament, so attractive in the New--the Jekyl and Hyde of sacred romance.
- Mark Twain

The general picture of God in the whole Bible ain't that clear to everyone as it is for you. Therefore comparing to example Allah can be done even though Allah is given in my opinion more freedom of act probably because of the incluence of some eastern philosophy.

I am referring to the idea that you should maybe step out of your sphere of thinking that even though some other system of faith (like Islam) doesn't have similar core values written into a book in specific way mean that there ain't anything other similarities example in those values or traditions.

But like I said I think you are heavily influenced by your own distaste for Islam which makes it impossible for you to find any similarities between them.

 

[Field_Marshal]

Umm, to all you bible counters here, I believe God said that only the hipocrits brag about their faith. Just saying.

 

[Katheryn]

I find it absurd to suggest they are not the same God. And that there are few similarities though, and I take this view from historical presentations both in here and others I have read.

If you believe they have the same God then how do you reconcile the fact that Christians say that Jesus is God?

Christians believe in "The Trinity", which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

From wikipedia:

Since its original formulation it continues to be used in the Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

These churches, that hold to the Trinity as explained in the Nicene Creed represent 99% of the Christian Churches in the world.

And as I showed from posting the actual words of the "salat" the memorized prayers of Muslims that they perform 5 times per day, they deny this Christian concept of God during this prayer. And they do it 5 times every day.

I'm not sure how much more they can deny the fact that they do NOT believe in the same God. 5 times a day is alot.

So, intellectually, I am at a loss here, really. How can you come to the conclusion that they believe in the same God? If Muslims truly do deny the Christian concept of God (3 persons 1 God) 5 times a day... and it is the very first thing that they do upon conversion (the Shahada - Pillar 1 of the 5 Pillars of Islam) how can this possibly be?

I would say though that in reading those books considered apocryhpal, I find as much resonance as in the new testament with Jesus' message and frankly accept that the bible has had alot of it's meaning whittled away from texts in both Greek and Aramaic, faith which seemed to be as grounded in contreveresy as the modern splinters of Christianity and Islam, in this respect I find much in modern faith to be a matter of interpritation of the time, with that in mind I find alot of Katheryns and others ideas to be specious and somewhat biased,being entirely interpritational and based on political interpritation throughout the ages, just as I find much of Islam to be politically interpreted and thus less than a representation than it might.

Islam is a social system as well as a religious system. It is a political ideology as well as a civic code. Sharia is a political system of rule in an Islamic society. There is no getting away from that. It exists all over the world. There are rules that come from the Islamic religion that the Koran demands be put into a country's legal code. That is fine for them in the Ummah, but it does not work in countries that have a different political system.

I acknowledge a fair few of Katheryns points, and particularly agree that Muslim society is backward as we term it, and needs to progress somewhat, although I do not agree on the reasons or the means to do this, finding it to be much more to do with politics than religion as she maintains. Her points about some Islamic cultures are fair representation too and well reasoned.

If this is how they want to live, they are free to do so. The problem is not to EXPAND it to the rest of the world.

On the whole though, it is difficult to side with someone who has a very narrow view of the argument and agree with C~G that to really get a grip you need to look deeper than your own cultural bias or more relativistically, or at least try to. I somehow doubt that Katheryn has been honest in her interpritation, although unwittingly, but then she is a product of her culture, just as Muslims are, which is where the root of these divisions lie. Nicely introduced point about culture in this thread.

If you are calling me dishonest, I think I deserve the right to defend myself from such a nasty charge. Why don't you be specific, to be fair? I don't think there is such a thing as 'unwitting' dishonesty. Either one is honest and mistaken, or dishonest and cunningly lying. Which is it?

That said I will say that unfortunately the cultural implications and the warring between the two factions have driven a wedge between them, one that I see as hard to comprehend if you believe they are the same God: someone has to be right, but I see no evidence to believe that one faiths view is any more apposite than any other, in which I include all the faiths that acknowledge a Creator, including Hinduism, and Budhism which also acknowledges a source of creation but does not deify it.

Which factions do you mean? Factions in Christianity? I'm not sure what to make of these comments.

And no one 'has to be right'. Why do you think that two different peoples cannot live together side by side and not agree on who God is? If there is a mutual respect and mutual opportunity, I don't see why there is this warring going on. However, if a particular people have a need to cling to their culture, mayhap they should stay IN that culture and not leave it. There is no need to import their culture to another. That is the respect that needs to be observed. We won't impose our culture on you (in your country) if you do not impose your culture on us (in our country). We won't forbid the dissemination of knowledge of your culture (in our country) if you will not forbid the dissemination of knowledge of ours (in your country). Isn't this fair? This doesn't call anyone 'backward' at all. Just calls for respect on both sides.

I personally see none of the faiths as right, but all to have some truth, and as far as I can tell the reson for their truth is opinion, so I seee no reason to condone such views above others.

At the heart of the argument though is similarity, I find a core of similarity that runs deep to the heart of Judaism, and a wealth of cultural intepritation; fundementally though all that matters is they worship the same God,regardless of how much they want to corrupt it's message to suit there own ideas, and that goes for all faiths.

Again, Muslims go to extreme pains to say that they do NOT believe in the Christian God. (Jesus). How bizarre that you want to deny that. For what reason? So we can get along? It is hard to do this when we don't even understand one another. How can we respect what we do not understand?

Though I'm not religous I find these following words to be a deal more revealing than some of the ancient texts I read. You could go a long way reading more than is in the bible than came to light at 300 or so AD, much was cut or altered, it's not without reason to think that no council had the knowledge to say which was right and which wrong and that books that have come to light later have no part in The Bible through sheer circumstance, as I said before much that was included is founded on a deal of division intepritation and politics of the councils of the time, I don't buy infallibility in any religion, and any man who claims he is without fault and his word is the truth is blasphemous, except God and Jesus which if they are the truth are beyond doubt, all others are mortal and subject to corruption, very few escaped it and certainly none in the last 1750 or so years.

Anyway:-



Mind you even if this ancient text had come to light at the times I doubt it would have been included for obvious reasons. Like much of the Bible though it has as much reason to be valid as any other peice of text. Why should men or women decide the word of God and deny the rest, what makes one councils perception - divided by inter faith strife for many years by theological debate and politics - the true word?

In the same way why should we believe Katheryn or Civ General to know the truth? Or for that matter the Clerics of Islam or of Judaism or Protestantism or the orthodox or the other schisms?

Minds much more sharp than yours or mine have debated these issues for thousands of years.

The Council of Nicea debated the issues in 325, and came up with these texts as their chosen holy book. Hundreds of heads of churches decided together which were acceptable as the Word of God. I don't find that suspicious in any way. It was decided by discussion and voting.

The Bible wasn't "cut and altered" . What happened is that for all these years, Christianity was OUTLAWED. To be found with a text (a letter from Paul or Peter, or Luke) was to be found with evidence of a crime. Therefore, the texts were hidden away in people's homes, in out of the way places. When the Christian Church was declared 'legal' in 313, all these hidden texts came out. There were different texts/mistypes/miscopies because the Church was not organized. A Council was declared in 325 to put all the manuscripts together, study them, and come up with the most reliable copy of the letters (epistles) of the disciples/Apostles. ALL of the Bishops of the Church were invited and most came to the Council. There was lively discussion, but in the end, there was unanimity.

"Cut and altered" means that out of maybe 300 different copies of the Book of John, these men studied and chose 1 to be the authorized one. Differences in all of these copies were mainly due to minor misspells, inability to read a word due to sloppy handwriting, and the like. There were no printing presses. They were copies of one another during persecution.

Texts that were rejected were done so (like the one above posted) because they were in conflict with the belief system of the Jewish books. Remember, the Bible is about 60-65% the OLD TESTAMENT, and these books were written at least 700 years BEFORE CHRIST.

So, if you have a concept in one of these books that were not also in agreement with beliefs in the Old Testament, they are rejected.

Here is a sample:

You have a text where it says Jesus is saying Scripture is dead, and that man should get his law from nature.

Now we go to the Old Testament as see if this idea is rejected here.

Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light for my path.

And this:

A voice says, "Cry out."
And I said, "What shall I cry?"
"All men are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.

7 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
because the breath of the LORD blows on them.
Surely the people are grass.

8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever."

This is just two, there are hundreds more here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...n=1&spanend=73startnumber=176&startnumber=226


But you get the idea, that the Old Testament reveres the 'Word of the Lord' what is considered Scripture.

So, when theologians of the Council of Nicea come upon this text, and it is completely alien to all the theology written before it, then they reject it. Here is a list of all the places where Jesus says he is fulfilling Old Testament Scripture:

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=scripture&x=12&y=6

So, it makes no sense that He, who taught Scripture at age 12, was a rabbi, and was fulfilling the prophecies in these scriptures, that he would say Scripture is worthless. It is common deduction.

So, there were no 'altered' and 'cut' texts, they were studied and either assimilated into Scripture or tossed out, depending upon their ability to stand up in light of all the texts already accepted.

 

[GenMarshall]

Yes you should! According to the Bible it is sinthful to go near a woman with menstruation.

古いヘブライの法。 (Old Hebrew Law)

And it's sinthful for men to be longhaired, and I know one who was:

Once again, 古いヘブライの法。 (Old Hebrew Law). Christians are in the New Covenant. We dont follow the old hebrew laws of the Old Covenant!

 

[Katheryn]

Yes you should! According to the Bible it is sinthful to go near a woman with menstruation. How do you take that? And it's sinthful for men to be longhaired, and I know one who was:

Spoiler :

Jesus!

You are quoting a law that was given to the Jewish people to observe in about 4000 BC.

The world was very different back then.

And the men who had long hair were considered 'Nazarenes' like Samson, who lost his strength because Delilah cut his hair, remember that story? So, you are incorrect about men not having 'long hair'.

Jesus is considered the consummate Nazarene.

Christians do not follow the Jewish laws.

They are for a particular people in a particular time period, who were in the Old Covenant with Jehovah.

We are now in the New Covenant. We do not follow a set of laws.

 

[Katheryn]

You claim (not that I believe) that you have "studied" Islam extensively after 9-11 and you have found no tenet to agree with - personally, I think you have not studied it at all, instead read articles and not taken them critically. You cannot accept that there are plentiful similarities between Islam and Christianity, not because you have read otherwise, but because you DON'T like it. Therefore you will vehemently argue otherwise, not with facts, but with your own opinions.

You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. I believe it is a fact that Islam and Christianity share much in morals, stories, rules and so on.



I have... let say... about 10 bibles in the house in which I life. The most recent one is from 2002, while the "oldest" is a an exact copy of a bible from the 1624 AD(iirc) written in old Finnish language - its a really heavy, dusty old book. Other bigger bibles are from the circa 1700 and 1800, and one is from the second ww. IIRC, i'm too lazy to check since I just came from the gym...

I said before that I talk to Muslims directly on line.