Christianity or Islam? Which one to believe?

Schuhart · 23-07-2008 11:09PM

Wicknight wrote: »

What was the percentage of Jews 2000 years ago who converted to Christianity? Where do you get the "many" from?

Indeed and, while my knowledge may be faulty, I thought the suggestion was they threw the faith open to Gentiles because they found they just weren't getting many Jews to convert.

PDN · 23-07-2008 11:29PM

Schuhart wrote: »

Indeed and, while my knowledge may be faulty, I thought the suggestion was they threw the faith open to Gentiles because they found they just weren't getting many Jews to convert.

No, I don't think there's any such suggestion in Scripture. I think it was more a case of the early Christians thinking about the Old Testament promises about all the nations being blessed through Abraham.

kelly1 · 24-07-2008 12:17PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, let me clarify, if you believe it was an angel sent by God, then surely the correct answer is B

why would anyone believe a bunch of humans over an angel sent by God?

This particular point is key. Apparitions are notoriously unreliable because as the Gospel says, Satan can transform himself into an angel of light. The angel who appeared to Mohammed wasn't sent by God.

The apostles on the other hand were taught directly by the Son of God and were given the Holy Spirit to guide them in their mission. Any why believe in Jesus? Because He performed many miracles including raising people from the dead. He fulfilled numerous prophesies in the Old Testament especially and the Messiah. He spoke with great authority and always had a good answer for those who tried to knock Him. The Jews have been waiting a rather long time for their expected Messiah to appear. When are they going to realize that Jesus is the Messiah?

MrPudding · 24-07-2008 02:15PM

kelly1 wrote: »

This particular point is key. Apparitions are notoriously unreliable because as the Gospel says, Satan can transform himself into an angel of light. The angel who appeared to Mohammed wasn't sent by God.

The apostles on the other hand were taught directly by the Son of God and were given the Holy Spirit to guide them in their mission. Any why believe in Jesus? Because He performed many miracles including raising people from the dead. He fulfilled numerous prophesies in the Old Testament especially and the Messiah. He spoke with great authority and always had a good answer for those who tried to knock Him. The Jews have been waiting a rather long time for their expected Messiah to appear. When are they going to realize that Jesus is the Messiah?

I am sure this has been answered before, and I apologise if it has, but how do we know that the whole "Jesus teaching the apostles / Son of God holy spirit / bible thing" is not an elaborate plot by the devil?

MrP

Schuhart · 24-07-2008 02:43PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I am sure this has been answered before, and I apologise if it has, but how do we know that the whole "Jesus teaching the apostles / Son of God holy spirit / bible thing" is not an elaborate plot by the devil?

MrP

Good point. I mean, if God is willing to let Mohammed get 1 billion followers on the strength of a false angel, he'd hardly peep at a diabolical Jesus misleading a few dozen Jews.

Noel, it might be best for internal consistency if you just said Mohammed made it all up. I don't think anyone else ever saw the angel. The most they saw was the Prophet in a trance-like state.

That means you shift your case to how, for the Gospels to be wrong, there has to be a conspiracy among all the early Christians to manufacture a story - a story which, ironically, does not seem to be rejected by the Quran on any point of observed fact.

(I should sit this one out, but I hate to see a reasonable argument get passed by.)

kelly1 · 24-07-2008 03:17PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I am sure this has been answered before, and I apologise if it has, but how do we know that the whole "Jesus teaching the apostles / Son of God holy spirit / bible thing" is not an elaborate plot by the devil?
MrP

That certainly did occur to me several times. I'm not sure when revelation began but I'm fairly sure it began with God's chosen people i.e. the Jews. God made several coventant with His people each one being closer to the point where God wants us to be. The new and final covenant was prophesied in the Old Testament and this covenant was to be established by the Messiah. Now if Jesus isn't that same Messiah, then I've been done up like a kipper and billions of Christians around the world have been seriously duped. According to adherentsc.com there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world (half of which are Catholic), 1.5bn Muslims, 1.1bn non-religious and 900m hindus. There are only 14m Jews.

Seriously I cannot fathom the possibility that Jesus isn't the Messiah. His message of love, peace, forgiveness and mercy just can't be improved upon. Jesus is the perfect model of how we should live.

Schuhart wrote: »

Noel, it might be best for internal consistency if you just said Mohammed made it all up. I don't think anyone else ever saw the angel. The most they saw was the Prophet in a trance-like state.

That means you shift your case to how, for the Gospels to be wrong, there has to be a conspiracy among all the early Christians to manufacture a story - a story which, ironically, does not seem to be rejected by the Quran on any point of observed fact.

Personally I think it's more likely he was deceived by a fallen angel. Did Mohammed have the intellect or the education to fabricate the Quran? I don't know really.

Flamed Diving · 24-07-2008 05:26PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously I cannot fathom the possibility that Jesus isn't the Messiah. His message of love, peace, forgiveness and mercy just can't be improved upon. Jesus is the perfect model of how we should live.

In your opinion.

robindch · 24-07-2008 06:32PM

kelly1 wrote: »

His message of love, peace, forgiveness and mercy just can't be improved upon. Jesus is the perfect model of how we should live.

All of the things that Jesus is said to have said about being nice to people were all said much earlier by other people. There's almost nothing original in anything he's reported to have said.

Flamed Diving · 24-07-2008 06:52PM

robindch wrote: »

All of the things that Jesus is said to have said about being nice to people were all said much earlier by other people. There's almost nothing original in anything he's reported to have said.

Buddha, anyone?

BrianCalgary · 24-07-2008 08:07PM

robindch wrote: »

All of the things that Jesus is said to have said about being nice to people were all said much earlier by other people. There's almost nothing original in anything he's reported to have said.

Actually there is .

His treatment of women and acceptance of them as equals was quite radical.
His concept of putting others before one self was also new.
Those are just starters.

Flamed Diving · 24-07-2008 08:09PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Actually there is .

His treatment of women and acceptance of them as equals was quite radical.
His concept of putting others before one self was also new.
Those are just starters.

:rolleyes:

robindch · 24-07-2008 09:52PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

His treatment of women and acceptance of them as equals was quite radical.

Jesus said little about women, and what he did say, was for the most part, consistent with contemporary Roman, Jewish and Greek custom. Things did not markedly improve after christianity assumed control of the Roman empire.

In Egypt though, even many centuries before Jesus was born, women enjoyed something close to equality with men, and this included a range of legal rights which were denied them in the Roman empire. And, I should point out, some of these rights were still frequently denied here in christian Ireland up until relatively recently, particularly in relation to property.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

His concept of putting others before one self was also new.

By the time that Jesus was born, Buddhism, Confucianism and many other ethical codes advocated putting oneself at the service of others, and had done for many centuries.

.

Bduffman · 25-07-2008 09:24AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

His treatment of women and acceptance of them as equals was quite radical.

Hmm - not quite radical enough to encourage full female participation in the catholic church (and other christian churches) over 2000 years later.

MrPudding · 25-07-2008 10:05AM

Bduffman wrote: »

Hmm - not quite radical enough to encourage full female participation in the catholic church (and other christian churches) over 2000 years later.

True. And boy, he really didn't like those homosexual fellows.....

MrP

Zombrex · 25-07-2008 11:30AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Now if Jesus isn't that same Messiah, then I've been done up like a kipper and billions of Christians around the world have been seriously duped.

Well yes, that is sort of the point.

If Jesus wasn't the Messiah but a tool of Satan, or if he was a prophet who's message was corrupted by the early Christians into the son of God concept, then this is playing straight into Satan's hands.

Billions of Christians performing a form of idolatry to a man claiming to be God, the greatest crime against God if he isn't.

According to the Jews the Gentiles don't need someone like Jesus to go to heaven, they simply need to follow Noah's laws.

You shall not have any idols before God.
You shall not murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not blaspheme God's name.
Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

To Jews and Muslims what Christians do with Jesus is a form of idol worship.

Obviously Christians disagree, but if you think about it from the context of Jesus, or the Christian representation of Jesus, as a corruption, this would kinda make sense. Satan is not going to get people to worship other gods, because it is clear you can't.

So what does he do?

He creates a message of the "son of God" as a physical man to be worshiped himself, to confuse people way from worshiping Gods true one nature and instead worship a man pretending to be God, or a message that put forward that he was God (Muslims don't believe Jesus pretended to be the son of God).

And you end up with 2000 years of people praying to Jesus, putting Jesus on the cross in their churches, hanging pictures of Jesus in their sitting rooms, all because they believe salvation is through this, rather than the 7 laws. If Jesus isn't God then all this is idolatry to a false prophet.

I mean, if I was Satan (and no doubt some here think I am), that would be certainly one way I would do it.

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously I can not fathom the possibility that Jesus isn't the Messiah. His message of love, peace, forgiveness and mercy just can't be improved upon. Jesus is the perfect model of how we should live.

Well yes, if you were Satan isn't that who you would send?

People are hardly going to fall over themselves to worship someone who is nasty and horrible?

If Noah's laws (most of which were actually given to Adam and Eve) are how the Gentiles are to please God and reach heaven then it make sense that all Satan would need to do to condemn everyone is to get people to move away from the first law, worship nothing before the one God.

By introducing a wonderful person who is full of a beauty message of peace and love but who requires that you worship him as God (because he claims to be God), and that salvation can only come through doing this, that is exactly how Satan would turn people away from obeying the 7 laws and God, condemning people.

The Old Testament says that Satan will send false prophets to test the faithful.

kelly1 · 25-07-2008 12:11PM

Wicknight, are you forgetting about the prophesy of the promised Messiah and His New Covenant? If Jesus isn't the Messiah, then why have the Jews been waiting 2000+ years? I don't have any verses to show that the Messiah's appearance was imminent but afaik He was expected "at any moment" around the time Christ was born. Maybe someone else could back this up?

philologos · 25-07-2008 12:23PM

Wicknight wrote: »

If Jesus wasn't the Messiah but a tool of Satan, or if he was a prophet who's message was corrupted by the early Christians into the son of God concept, then this is playing straight into Satan's hands.

That's beside the point. Jesus fits Biblical prophesy or the prophetic Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament exactly. Such as being born in Bethlehem of Judea (which no other Jewish Messiah claimant actually fulfilled), being put to death, being buried in an rich mans tomb, to things as miniscule and precise as refusing the wine he was offered at the Crucifixion. That's the assurance that Jesus infact is the Jewish Messiah spoken of.

MrPudding · 25-07-2008 12:24PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Wicknight, are you forgetting about the prophesy of the promised Messiah and His New Covenant? If Jesus isn't the Messiah, then why have the Jews been waiting 2000+ years? I don't have any verses to show that the Messiah's appearance was imminent but afaik He was expected "at any moment" around the time Christ was born. Maybe someone else could back this up?

But maybe the devil knew about the prophesy and killed the real jesus so his false one appeared to tick all the boxes. Satan is, afterall, supposed to be fairly clever.

MrP

MrPudding · 25-07-2008 12:26PM

Jakkass wrote: »

That's beside the point. Jesus fits Biblical prophesy or the prophetic Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament exactly. Such as being born in Bethlehem of Judea (which no other Jewish Messiah claimant actually fulfilled), being put to death, being buried in an rich mans tomb, to things as miniscule and precise as refusing the wine he was offered at the Crucifixion. That's the assurance that Jesus infact is the Jewish Messiah spoken of.

But the devil would have been aware of all this and could easily have made his false jesus appear to be real. There would not be much point in doing it otherwise.

MrP

Zombrex · 25-07-2008 12:30PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Wicknight, are you forgetting about the prophesy of the promised Messiah and His New Covenant?

No. Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah. Muslims think he was. But neither think Jesus, nor the Messiah is or will be the "son of God"

That is the crucial bit. It is not that Jesus came, or that he was the messiah.

It is the claim that he is God and should be worshiped as such, that goes against Judaism and Islam.

In those religions the Messiah is an anointed one, one who will work for God here on Earth. It isn't God himself, and the idea of worshiping a man or prophet as God is heretical and a form of idolatry.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't have any verses to show that the Messiah's appearance was imminent but afaik He was expected "at any moment" around the time Christ was born. Maybe someone else could back this up?

Not sure. Different branches of Judaism interpret the message of a messiah in different ways.

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

Jesus was supposed to be back within a generation though, so we all know how things can be interpreted in different ways depending on how one interprets certain words and verses.

Zombrex · 25-07-2008 12:39PM

Jakkass wrote: »

That's beside the point. Jesus fits Biblical prophesy or the prophetic Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament exactly.

Not quite sure where you get the "exactly" from, considering the prophesies about the messiah or messiahs in the Old Testament are anything but exact.

Jews have a long list of why Jesus doesn't match the prophesies, but again because they are so inexact and open to interpretation that holds little sway with Christians.

But again, as I said to kelly, it isn't the claim that Jesus was the Messiah that causes Jews and Muslims the problem (well not Muslims at least). It is the claim that Jesus was God and should be worshiped as such.

To Muslims and Jews that is nonsense. No prophet or messiah would be God, and none should be worshiped as such.

The point about this being a trick from Satan was in response to the claim that that might have been what Mohammad's revelation was.

Jakkass wrote: »

Such as being born in Bethlehem of Judea (which no other Jewish Messiah claimant actually fulfilled), being put to death, being buried in an rich mans tomb, to things as miniscule and precise as refusing the wine he was offered at the Crucifixion. That's the assurance that Jesus infact is the Jewish Messiah spoken of.

Well yes but do you not think Satan would know all that as well ... ?

He would hardly send a "messiah" would didn't do those things would he? How hard would it be to make him appear in Bethlehem or refuse wine?

At the end of the day you have to ask yourself would the messiah claim to be God and say that he must be treated as such.

Both the Jews and the Muslims say no he wouldn't. There is one God. He doesn't have "son" who likes to materialize as a man on Earth and go around representing his authority. "Son of God" is a methophical phrase that means coming from God, as humans and angels are, not a literal relationship. The messiah will be the son of God in the same way humans were. He won't actually be God

The Jews choose to interpret that as meaning Jesus wasn't the messiah and the Muslims as meaning the message he was God came after Jesus (who never made that claim) and was a corruption.

kelly1 · 25-07-2008 01:08PM

Wicknight wrote: »

No. Jews don't think Jesus was the Messiah. Muslims think he was. But neither think Jesus, nor the Messiah is or will be the "son of God"

That is the crucial bit. It is not that Jesus came, or that he was the messiah.

It is the claim that he is God and should be worshiped as such, that goes against Judaism and Islam.

In those religions the Messiah is an anointed one, one who will work for God here on Earth. It isn't God himself, and the idea of worshiping a man or prophet as God is heretical and a form of idolatry.

Try Isiah 9:6

6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. 7 His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

or

Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel [means God with us].

See http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tstorck_otmessiah_dec05.asp

Bduffman · 25-07-2008 02:48PM

Jakkass wrote: »

That's beside the point. Jesus fits Biblical prophesy or the prophetic Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament exactly. Such as being born in Bethlehem of Judea (which no other Jewish Messiah claimant actually fulfilled), being put to death, being buried in an rich mans tomb, to things as miniscule and precise as refusing the wine he was offered at the Crucifixion. That's the assurance that Jesus infact is the Jewish Messiah spoken of.

Of course that is all presuming that the OT prophesies weren't altered at a later date to match some of jesus' actions. Or that the story of jesus wasn't altered to match the prophesies. Very big presumptions.

philologos · 25-07-2008 03:01PM

The Isaiah codex found at Qumran dated to 100BC matches the previous one that is used for current translations. It's not up for question that they were altered afterwards due to the codexes that they translate from being much older than the New Testament. If they wanted to catch out Christian alterations why is the Christian Old Testament the same as the Jewish Tanakh? Surely the Jews would have exposed this flaw in Christianity by now.

Zombrex · 25-07-2008 03:03PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Try Isiah 9:6

Ummm...

Try Isiah 9:6 again by interpreting it as a name (with fits in the context of the piece) rather than a description.

The messiah will be called "El Gabor", he won't actually be God.

"El" also can mean judge depending on the context, not necessarily God (though God is obviously the ultimate judge). So El Gabor can be translated as "strong judge" and the messiah will be named "Strong Judge".

There are plenty of instances in the Old Testament when the name of God is used as a name or identifier for someone else without inferring that the person actually is God.

The name Elijah is considered a shortening of Eli Yahweh, which also means God, that doesn't mean Elijah was God himself does it?

The name Ezekiel means "strong god", again that doesn't mean Ezekiel is God (strong or otherwise).

The name Eliadah means "god knows", again that doesn't mean Eliadah is God (knowing or otherwise)

In this context, the context of the name given to the messiah, the idea that the messiah is actually literally God is lost.

At least that is how both Muslims and Jews interpret that passage.

There is plenty about this on the web, both the Muslims and particular the Jews get rather worked up over what they see as quite silly misrepresenting of Old Testament passages out of context to fit into a Christian frame work.

PDN · 25-07-2008 03:04PM

Bduffman wrote: »

Of course that is all presuming that the OT prophesies weren't altered at a later date to match some of jesus' actions. Or that the story of jesus wasn't altered to match the prophesies. Very big presumptions.

We have manuscript evidence of the Old Testament Scriptures, including the Dead Sea scrolls, and they show no evidence of being changed.

Consider also that Judaism has maintained copies of the Old Testament books in their synagogues and have transmitted them from generation to generation. Are you seriously suggesting that these Jews would have altered their Scriptures to make them match Jesus' actions?

Bduffman · 25-07-2008 03:18PM

PDN wrote: »

We have manuscript evidence of the Old Testament Scriptures, including the Dead Sea scrolls, and they show no evidence of being changed.

This may be an obvious point but how do you know that the earliest OT writings in existence are the first one ever written? How many were written before that?

PDN wrote: »

Consider also that Judaism has maintained copies of the Old Testament books in their synagogues and have transmitted them from generation to generation. Are you seriously suggesting that these Jews would have altered their Scriptures to make them match Jesus' actions?

Which is why the most likely explanation is that the NT was fabricated. After all, if you know what the prophesies are, all you have to do is write a story matching them exactly - yes?

PDN · 25-07-2008 03:33PM

Bduffman wrote: »

This may be an obvious point but how do you know that the earliest OT writings in existence are the first one ever written? How many were written before that?

The earliest date is irrelevant for this discussion. Sufficient that we have many Old Testament manuscripts (including the entire Book of Isaiah) dated from 150BC. Therefore it would obviously be historically incorrect to claim that they were altered to fit in with the life of a man that had not been born yet.

Which is why the most likely explanation is that the NT was fabricated. After all, if you know what the prophesies are, all you have to do is write a story matching them exactly - yes?

Nobody can stop you indulging in such wishful thinking, but if you want the rest of us to take you seriously then you should provide evidence for such a claim.

Zombrex · 25-07-2008 03:40PM

PDN wrote: »

Nobody can stop you indulging in such wishful thinking, but if you want the rest of us to take you seriously then you should provide evidence for such a claim.

It would probably be faster if you first explained what evidence would cause you to take that claim seriously ...

PDN · 25-07-2008 03:44PM

Wicknight wrote: »

It would probably be faster if you first explained what evidence would cause you to take that claim seriously ...

The claim that the NT was fabricated? I don't see any evidence for such a claim, that's why I'm asking for it.

Christianity or Islam? Which one to believe?

Comments