Islam vs. Christianity Part 1

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

OH I throw out "red herrings?" You never answer direct questions do you. Instead you divert away from the question, lately by calling attention to "red herrings".

.

You throw out questions to avoid the points I made. That is a RED HERRING. In other words you are trying to divert the attention away.

God made a NEW covenant. I find it ironic your first post here says you don't want to debate and rather than learning you argue.

God made a NEW covenant. Christ is the MEDIATOR of that covenant just like Moses was of the OLD. You are trying to appeal to the OLD as some sort of Anti-Christian argument and when I point out how it is invalid you interject red herrings.

God made a new covenant. We need to start with that and settle that issue. You are the one lamenting that we don't believe the word or take it as it is written or whatever and when we DO appeal to the word of God you attempt to ignore it.

Again, the relevant issue is that we have a NEW covenant. Now what is important is to discover what the bible says of that new covenant.

I can't help but think when you said you don't want a debate you were being less than genuine. Why be argumentative?

Do you deny the bible says God would make a NEW covenant and what Christ said about that New Covenant? See that is the thing, rather than address those verses I post, you ignore them. You have no answer or response TO them

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Avoiding the issue?

Yes you avoid the issues and ignore the points I make and redirect the attention somewhere else. When you can accept that God promised to make a NEW covenant and what Christ said about it, then we can discuss the rest of it. But over and over rather than addressing the points I made, you ignore them and try to shift the burden of proof or fire off in another direction.

See the whole issue revolves around you making certain assertions about keeping the OLD COVENANT and claiming Paul did not accurately represent it or he reinterpreted it. Yet when I quote the word of God saying we have a NEW covenant NOT like the OLD....rather than going "Ah! I get it" or even making some sort of argument that God did not make this new covenant yet, you circumvent the entire truth of that verse.

You are trying to tie us down to an Old Covenant that is no longer relevant because there is a NEW covenant. That is the issue we need to address FIRST. But over and over you avoided that.

Further, your comments on Paul. I posted several verses and you ignored everyone of them and claimed that WE are the ones that don't believe or follow the scriptures.

On Paul the truth is that Jesus commissioned and trained His Apostles to continue His ministry and preach His word. Further he prayed for everyone that would believe on Him through THEIR word.

One of the Apostles is Peter and He confirmed Paul as a brother and his words as wisdom given to him and as scriptures. I posted that twice because you never addressed that. That directly contradicts your assertions about Paul.

That is what I mean by red herrings. You keep trying to avoid the counter arguments to your assertions by misdirection or avoiding my counter arguments altogether, then you expect me to be fine with that and address everything you say?

Address my points directly and the verses and how they contradict the arguments you made, if you are here for debate. Otherwise if not, then learn or leave.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Jesus did add teachings to the old law. What did christians do? First they "renamed him" after a Greek god then applied diety to him over the God that he specifically taught you to worship.

Jesus comes from the Greek name "Iesous/IHSOUS" and Latin "Iesus." "Iesous" is adapted from the name of the Greek goddess of healing "Iesos/Iaso," the daughter of Apollo, the Sun-deity. This goddess was linked to the Egyptian "Isis" who had a son named "Isu." During the era of Roman Emperors, there were numerous worshippers of "Isis." Many converted to Constantine's religion that mixed paganism with the Messianic faith that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church continues to use the sunburst emblem known as the "Eucharist" which to this day contains the Greek letters "IHS" for "IHSOUS." Further research reveals that the name "Jesus" is also linked to the Greek Sun-god "Zeus" who was the Greek interpretation of the Egyptian Sun-god "Amen-Rah."

Yahshua/Yahushua/Yahoshua, is the correct Name for the Savior

This is a red herring argument again. RAther than deal with the counter arguments I made you introduce a completely new argument having nothing to do with what we were discussing.

I will briefly teach you where you are in error. First of all you might stop resorting to your Islamic answers websites and do your own study like I did.

Jesus is the Enlish form of the latin Iesus. English formed the J later on.

The Latin Iesus is a transliteration from the greek Iesous.

Why Iesous? That is the greek transliteraltion of the Aramaic Yeshua.

(Iēsous) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Joshua” (יהושׁע, yehōshua‛), meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” It stands therefore in the Septuagint and Apocrypha for “Joshua,” and in Act_7:45 and Heb_4:8 likewise represents the Old Testament Joshua; hence, in the Revised Version (British and American) is in these passages rendered “Joshua.” In Mat_1:21 the name as commanded by the angel to be given to the son of Mary, “for it is he that shall save his people from their sins” (see below on “Nativity”). It is the personal name of the Lord in the Gospels and the Acts, but generally in the Epistles appears in combination with “Christ” or other appellative (alone in Rom_3:26; Rom_4:24; 1Co_12:3; 2Co_11:4; Phi_2:10; 1Th_4:14; Heb_7:22; Heb_10:19, etc.).

2. Christ:
(Christos) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah” (משׁיח, māshīaḥ; compare in the New Testament, Joh_1:41; Joh_4:25, “Messiah”), meaning “anointed” (see MESSIAH). It designates Jesus as the fulfiller of the Messianic hopes of the Old Testament and of the Jewish people. It will be seen below that Jesus Himself made this claim. After the resurrection it became the current title for Jesus in the apostolic church. Most frequently in the Epistles He is called “Jesus Christ,” sometimes “Christ Jesus” (Rom_8:1, Rom_8:2, Rom_8:39; 1Co_1:2, 1Co_1:30; 1Co_4:15; Eph_1:1; Phi_1:1; Col_1:4, Col_1:28 the King James Version; 1Th_2:14, etc.), often “Christ” alone (Rom_1:16 the King James Version; Rom_5:6, Rom_5:8; Rom_6:4, Rom_6:8, Rom_6:9; Rom_8:10, etc.). In this case “Christ” has acquired the force of a proper name. Very frequently the term is associated with “Lord” (kúrios) - “the (or “our”) Lord Jesus Christ” (Act_11:17; Act_15:11 the King James Version; Act_16:31 the King James Version; Act_20:21; Act_28:31; Rom_1:7; Rom_5:1, Rom_5:11; Rom_13:14; 1Co_16:23, etc.).

All your extra junk about the RCC have no relevance on the name or this discussion.

The LXX, which is a greek version of the Hebrew Torah, made a couple hundred years before Jesus was born, uses Iesous for "Joshua" which in Hebrew is Yeshua or Yehoshua. Sorry but you are wrong.

BTW "Isa" is hardly anything like Yeshua and sounds closer to your "Isis" argument than Iesous does.

[Walks_in_islam]

You spend too much time applying the bible to me while diverting attention about applying the bible to yourselves. I apply the bible to you. Imagine how relevent it would be if I quoted Surah's from the Quran then browbeat you for not following them or even dumber made you explain them to me. That would be pretty stupid. In return, you are welcome to feel free to apply the Quran to me. They (your points) are not so much ignored as cast aside as irrelevent. Otherwise, I will continue running up the "parts of the bible that those of christian faith do not follow" score unopposed. When you point out "parts of the bible that muslims do not follow" you make no point at all. Of course we do not. That is why it is called Islam and that is why we are Muslims. We have a much, much more conservative and stricter lifestyle and regimen to follow than you ever will.

So your points fall flat to me.

Tell you what: When your points say "this is christianity. this is what our bible teaches and this is what we do to follow it and this is what we believe" THEN your words will have merit to me. If you do not follow it do not waste your time to start it though. This can truly become a "this is christianity" and "this is islam" discussion. Otherwise, anything out there that is terrible or that has been dreamed up or that is negative about Islam or crimes that have been done by "Muslims" is matched word for word and line for line about christianity and "Christians". Personally I don't think you have it. Few of you do. What you have is a lot of hate towards "Muslims" or "baptists" or "catholics" or "trinitarians" or..or..or.. -perfect strangers who you have never met or do not look like you or do not talk like you or do not share your views. Your current favorite on your 'going-to-hell' list is muslims. It was "jimmy swaggart followers" or "televangelists" or the old favorite "catholics" You dam sure have more time to spread that hate for them than a message of hope or love or christianity.

As to the references on paganism, all were written by a christian 'scholar' to other christians as part of his writings to urge those in the christian faith to not follow, use, or refer to pagan practices and terms while practicing their faith. There are lists and lists of common terms in christianity and what this 'scholar' says are their ties to old pagan practices. If the references were wrong, you are arguing with a 'scholar' from among your own midst. It was highly amusing to me to post a few of his points. I know full well that most of these are probably stretches but it's (just) as entertaining to me to cut and post his writings and string them along to imply that nearly every thing you do or say and every term you use has ties to pagan practices as it was entertaining to you to post the 'goat porn' and compare the Kabaa cornerstone with a female part of the body. What was cool is that I found EXACTLY the same thing with the christian fish turned vertically with a figure in the center, one of the old Roman depictions of the christian faith, but I chose not to post it. I actually thought it was the Kabaa picture you posted but nope, lol, it was a "christian" symbol. I nearly choked. lol and ain't the internet grand. I could post a pic of dog doo and some e-moron would probably consider it pagan and some e-moron would probably consider it spiritual. Such has the world become.

As to the references on Paul, again these came from (internal christian) discussions on the formation of the early christian church and the subsequent fractures among different followers. Since I know what your denomination teaches I just pick the opposite to see what you will do or say. There is certainly just as much commentary out there in support of Paul and the followers of Paul. I am waiting breathlessly on your commentary on "women in church". Sadly, this is the (4th) time that the question has been avoided.

So do you have a question about Islam for me or will you continue to dictate your interpretation of islam to me while asking me to explain your bible to you while at the same time avoiding the specific questions from Timothy II that were asked now 2 weeks ago and never answered.

dictate your interpretation of islam to me and I will dictate interpretations of "christianity" to you
asking me to explain your bible to you will earn you chapter, verse, literal interpretation, and a question as to whether or not you follow the literal words
avoiding the specific questions from Timothy II will only validate what I already said. You and your church likely ignores them

Regards,

Wii

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You throw out questions to avoid the points I made. That is a RED HERRING. In other words you are trying to divert the attention away.

God made a NEW covenant. I find it ironic your first post here says you don't want to debate and rather than learning you argue.

God made a NEW covenant. Christ is the MEDIATOR of that covenant just like Moses was of the OLD. You are trying to appeal to the OLD as some sort of Anti-Christian argument and when I point out how it is invalid you interject red herrings.

God made a new covenant. We need to start with that and settle that issue. You are the one lamenting that we don't believe the word or take it as it is written or whatever and when we DO appeal to the word of God you attempt to ignore it.

Again, the relevant issue is that we have a NEW covenant. Now what is important is to discover what the bible says of that new covenant.

I can't help but think when you said you don't want a debate you were being less than genuine. Why be argumentative?

Do you deny the bible says God would make a NEW covenant and what Christ said about that New Covenant? See that is the thing, rather than address those verses I post, you ignore them. You have no answer or response TO them

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You spend too much time applying the bible to me while diverting attention about applying the bible to yourselves.

Good grief....I never applied the bible to you. YOU tried to apply the bible to me AND you tried to discount Paul's words. All I did was USE the bible to counter your attempt to apply the law of Moses to me and your attempt to discount Paul.

It was your assertions that started this. When I tried to counter your assertions you resorted to red herrings, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks

[Walks_in_islam]

As to your "new covenant", the breaking of bread and drinking of wine and it's symbology.

How does something so important, so eventful, get COMPLETELY MISSED IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN? Was John there? Did he participate? In his gospel he failed to note that these eventful actions took place at all. Yet this is your reference to the new covenant with all of mankind (well the house of judah and isreal which YOU apply to all of mankind). I recognize what you see as the significance but the significance you see was not significant enough for John to even note in his gospel. Point (for you please) to ponder I guess.

Of course I apply the bible to you. Are you christian or not? Is the bible the holy word of god, inspired scripture sent by god for you to follow or not?

BTW, as above, I do discount Paul's words. I wish to know for a fact if you discount them as well by hearing you stand up, man up, and state whether you follow the literal words of Timothy II (and similar passages) out of the teachings of Paul or not.

(5th time lol eventually you will either run out of ways to dodge the question or this same question will be asked every time you post until you either answer it or go away)

I posted several verses and you ignored everyone of them and claimed that WE are the ones that don't believe or follow the scriptures

I did claim that. Let us start with the ones I claim you do not follow, perhaps I am wrong. Let us start with the implication that I made that you are under old testament law. I will use just (one). Otherwise you become overwhelmed, confused, and fail to answer.

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted to them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also said the law. I Cor 14:34

1. What is the literal meaning of this
2. What law (submission or obedience) is this referring to.

Hopefully this simply worded question is not too overwhelming to you.

Regards,

Wii

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Good grief....I never applied the bible to you. YOU tried to apply the bible to me AND you tried to discount Paul's words. All I did was USE the bible to counter your attempt to apply the law of Moses to me and your attempt to discount Paul.

It was your assertions that started this. When I tried to counter your assertions you resorted to red herrings, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You didn't answer this question

Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and examine my hands. Extend your hand and put it into my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe."
Joh 20:28 Thomas replied to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed."

John 20 is the story of the resurrection of Jesus. John 20 does not match the other accounts of the resurrection. The day of the week is different, the people who were there are different, and in this gospel the stone was already moved when Mary Magdeline arrived. John (or whoever wrote this) left out the "heavenly messenger" account as well.

Just as John gives a completely different version of the last supper.

You need to decide which of these books reflects an accurate account of the life of Jesus my friend. You keep using John to make your points but John does not match the others.

However, to answer your assertation, John also writes that Jesus said:

You heard me tell you, 'I am going away and I will come back to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.
And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.
I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over me,
but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

John 20 is the story of the resurrection of Jesus. John 20 does not match the other accounts of the resurrection. The day of the week is different, the people who were there are different, and in this gospel the stone was already moved when Mary Magdeline arrived. John (or whoever wrote this) left out the "heavenly messenger" account as well.

Just as John gives a completely different version of the last supper.

You need to decide which of these books reflects an accurate account of the life of Jesus my friend. You keep using John to make your points but John does not match the others.

However, to answer your assertation, John also writes that Jesus said:

You heard me tell you, 'I am going away and I will come back to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.
And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.
I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over me,
but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me.

Hello my dear friend Walks_In_Islam. Peace be unto you.

I pray you don't mind me visiting the conversation to add a few things here and there. I do not doubt your love for God and reverence of the Holy Scriptures. Like blind men trying to describe the sunset are we when trying to explain God’s majesty to one another. May God grant you peace and revelation. My sincerest hope is that this is your prayer for me and our dear friend Pax also.

You bring some very important points to the table. These things have troubled Christians and Christian theologies alike for nearly two thousand years. However I think some important considerations should be made.

First, each Gospel has a perspective. I know this doesn’t excuse the inconsistencies (I’ll address them shortly). However, I think it’s important to note each Gospel writers focus and perspective before delving into trying to understand these discrepancies. Matthew wrote primarily from the perspective of a Messianic Jew because his Gospel was essentially written to the Jewish people. Christian tradition holds that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (or Aramaic), however some scholars may differ. Much of what is written in Matthew is better understood by Jewish audiences. Many times Matthew takes for granted that his audience understands Jewish customs. So Matthew may focus on things that would be important from a Jewish perspective such as the Messianic prophecies validating Christ’s Messiahship or controversies relating to Christ from a Jewish perspective. Mark was the first Gospel written and Christian tradition holds that it was written in Greek. Marks understanding of the geography of Palestine is poor and it appears that he goes into detail to explain some Jewish customs. This would imply that Mark wasn’t necessarily from the region of Palestine and was writing to a mixed audience about the basics of Christ’s life. Mark’s Gospel is abbreviated and some of it’s focus appears to indicate that his readers were under persecution. Many traditionally hold that Mark was writing to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles in Rome. Luke was written in Greek and it appears that his audience was primarily Gentiles because Luke attempts to explain many of the Jewish issues that arise around Christ. Luke focuses on Christ being the anointed savior of the world with healing power (something dear to Luke’s heart because he was a physician). So Luke may not touch things that Matthew or Mark addressed. Now for John, John is a very interesting Gospel. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are generally referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they are in relative harmony and appear to address the basic teachings and events of Christ’s life. But John is different. John from chapter one delves into Christology and theological issues and interests that one familiar with Greek philosophy and Hellenist Jews might have regarding Christ’s divinity and identity. So, John doesn’t focus so much on explaining Christ from a Jewish perspective, an observer’s perspective to a mixed church under persecution, or a physician’s perspective in relation to the Gentiles. This is why each Gospel often addresses or mentions things from Christ’s life that the others do not.

When my mother died we sat and talked about her all night. My grandmother called to mind things that she remembered that I had forgotten or never noticed, because she saw my mom through the eyes of a mother. My aunt remembered things about her a little differently because she remembered my mother through the eyes of a sister. And I remembered things from the perspective of a son. We talked about a trip we took together and each of us seemed to remember different elements as they affected us in relation to our relationship with her. That’s just human nature.

The Koran doesn’t have this problem. Why? It has only one author, Muhammad (PBUH). The Koran’s consistency isn’t a challenge at all because of this. Now, if the Koran was written about Muhammad (PBUH) from four different perspectives, I assure you it would face the same issue as the Gospels.

Now… about the inconsistencies; I’d like to go back to the example I gave about my mother. When reflecting on several things we each remembered them a little differently. Sometimes we couldn't remember exactly what order some events happened in. My wife and I are notorious for this. We can go to dinner and see a play and I try to share what happened with a friend… and to my chagrin my wife will correct me, “No, the king discovered Lady Beth’s dress before the dinner!” And then we’ll go a few rounds until I say, “Whatever, you get my point!” And that was our attempt to cover the events of one evening the very day after! LOL Imagine four writers trying to remember things about Christ’s life perhaps decades after Christ’s ascension. No doubt if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would have sat around a table talking, some debate over how many were fed the day Christ fed the multitudes could have arisen. These inconsistencies prove the Gospel’s authenticity. It really happened, and real men remember it, howbeit differently, but they agree on the events in and of themselves. No doubt if I attempted to fraudulently write a supposed holy book of my own self made religion over a few decades I could easily make it perfectly consistent and criticize the Gospels themselves. The Koran’s apparent consistency compared to the Gospel’s apparent inconsistencies prove little. In fact, from a Christian perspective, it makes the Koran suspect to me, though I have read several Suaras, and I find it to be a very beautiful work. In fact, I have a rather large Koran in both English and Arabic with commentary below each passage. It was given to me by a dear friend that I had at the Islamic Center of Dayton years ago.

The inconsistencies also testify to another truth. The Gospels haven’t been altered to any great degree. Yes, in translation some meanings are lost and translators compensate with their own theological understanding in their attempt to translate it accurately. The Koran faces the same challenge when being translated from Arabic to English. One can only say that they have actually read and understood the Koran with certainty if they have studied and read it in Arabic. If the Gospels were tampered with, or were a human innovation, certainly after 2,000 years theologians would have ironed out the inconsistencies and made it extremely consistent. But each Gospel writer’s message is left in its original form, even if some inconsistencies exist.

Some may charge that if the Gospels are the Word of God, God would have MADE them write consistently miraculously. Well… I suppose that could be so. However, God uses fallible human men like you and me. A master craftsman is often limited by the quality of his tools. And we human beings are so imperfect. The differences in the Gospels reflect this. It doesn’t mean that they are less true or less anointed.

Therefore, these apparent inconsistencies are precious to many of us Christians.

I hope that this adds to the discussion.

Many blessings and peace be unto you dear Walks_In_Islam.

Sincerely,

Bro. Chris

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

As to your "new covenant", the breaking of bread and drinking of wine and it's symbology.

How does something so important, so eventful, get COMPLETELY MISSED IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN? Was John there? Did he participate? In his gospel he failed to note that these eventful actions took place at all.

So what?

Yet this is your reference to the new covenant with all of mankind (well the house of judah and isreal which YOU apply to all of mankind).

I didn't say with mankind. Regardless you have no answer to the verses I posted right?

I recognize what you see as the significance but the significance you see was not significant enough for John to even note in his gospel. Point (for you please) to ponder I guess.

that's not a point. That is a useless fact unless you can use it to MAKE a point.

Of course I apply the bible to you.

No you said I applied the bible to YOU. lol...no I did not.

BTW, as above, I do discount Paul's words.

And I have already refuted your attempt to do that, you ignored the verses I gave and instead introduced a red herring

(5th time lol eventually you will either run out of ways to dodge the question or this same question will be asked every time you post until you either answer it or go away)

I have no problem engaging someone's honest questions, when they stop avoiding my points and show they are interested in dialog, not just sophomoric banter

I did claim that. Let us start with the ones I claim you do not follow, perhaps I am wrong. Let us start with the implication that I made that you are under old testament law. I will use just (one). Otherwise you become overwhelmed, confused, and fail to answer.

Uh..no let's start with MY points and MY verses that I gave in answer to YOUR attempt at a biblical argument. This is what I mean by red herring. You want to change the subject and ignore the facts. Regardless of whether or not a Christian keeps or follows everything Paul said I have proven you wrong in your assertion about Paul. When you can start dealing with that argument then we can move on.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

John 20 is the story of the resurrection of Jesus. John 20 does not match the other accounts of the resurrection. The day of the week is different, the people who were there are different, and in this gospel the stone was already moved when Mary Magdeline arrived. John (or whoever wrote this) left out the "heavenly messenger" account as well.

That it does not match the other gospels is irrelevant. John's account is not contradictory. He gives information that the other gospels did not give. Otherwise show me the contradictions by quoting verses.

Just as John gives a completely different version of the last supper.

Again, that is irrelevant. He gives a different perspective does not mean his version was false.

You need to decide which of these books reflects an accurate account of the life of Jesus my friend. You keep using John to make your points but John does not match the others.

They all give insight into what happened.

However, to answer your assertation, John also writes that Jesus said:

You heard me tell you, 'I am going away and I will come back to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.
And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.
I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over me,
but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me.

So how does that refute the verse I gave? On the one hand you attempt to refute the gospel of John then on the other quote it as if it is valid.

BTW I know the answer to this so called conundrum, the problem is spiritual things are for the spiritual.