Is it possible to be a Christian and a believer in Islam?

Scorpie

Well, in the New Testament, ...

Yes, we seem to be in agreement that Jesus was Jewish. That describes a class of religious opinions based on the Hebrew Bible and perhaps some oral traditions at that time. There wasn't a Jewish canon until after Jesus died, so we don't know what other books of Jewish religious literature, if any, Jesus may have relied upon to form his religious views.

As I observed, many Jews were surprised that Jesus talked about drinking blood (for example, John 6: 51-end). So, whatever kind of Jew Jesus was, other Jews of his time thought he wasn't always a very good Jew.

If you have some record of Jesus' religious opinions besides the New Testament, then feel free to produce it. Why don't you be honest about it, though? Your "other record" is the Koran.

As to the rest, I have already commented on your habit of resorting to ad hominem abuse whenever you get caught faking some claim that anti-Christian claptrap you found in the Koran is corroborated by the Gospels. After you B&M for a while about how unfair it is to ask you to produce a chapter and verse, eventually, you come back with a line or two you've found at some Muslim website, which unravels when either the preceding or following line is added to what you quote.

So, go ahead, produce your verse, or better yet, yack about me some more. Nobody will notice how you're changing the subject. Nobody will think, "Oh dear, Scorpie's been caught fibbing about Jesus again."

reply to post by FlyersFan


I think the Bible is a false teaching though I agree that Jesus was here and meant to spread a great message to humanity. Because of these mis-translations, how can we say that the bible is the entire truth? Here's an example from a Biblical scholar.

Dr Joel Hoffman

Starting about 2,300 years ago, the Hebrew Bible was translated into a Greek version now known as the Septuagint. One shortcoming of that translation is its inattention to near synonyms. For instance, the Hebrew words for "love," "mercy" and "compassion" are frequently mixed up, because they mean nearly the same thing. Likewise, because most young women in antiquity were virgins and most virgins were young women, the Septuagint wasn't careful to distinguish the words for "virgin" and "young woman" in translation.

This is how the Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14 -- which describes a young woman giving birth to a boy who will be named Emmanuel -- ended up in Greek as a virgin giving birth. Though these facts about Greek and Hebrew are generally undisputed among scholars, the translation error remains, both because people are usually unwilling to give up familiar translations, and also perhaps because the Gospel of Matthew describes the virgin birth of Jesus by quoting the mistaken Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14.

So the virgin birth in the first place is controversial simply because the entire passage was possibly mis-translated. This is a big deal also when proving Jesus's divinity.

In these and many other instances, improved translation techniques bring us closer to the original intent of the Bible. And like a newly restored work of art, the Bible's original beauty shines the brighter for it.

And this is where we come back to Islam and their belief.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
I think the Bible is a false teaching though I agree that Jesus was here and meant to spread a great message to humanity.

Okay. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You are basing your opinion on what you are learning and you are tyring to make an educated decision .. not blindly following one thing or another and not blindly hating something without trying to understand it. The more you learn, the more your opinions will change. At least, that's how it is with me. My beliefs are fluid as I learn more.

I think the Qu'ran is a false teaching ... totally and completely false and easily proven as such. And, Muhammad wasn't 'sent here' to spread any great message. He did more harm than good. IMHO.

I think the Old Testament is a mish-mash of myth and ancient stories stolen from the Summerians and Egyptians but rewritten by the Jews and claimed as their own. (like Muhammad took bits and pieces from other religions, poorly retold them, and claimed them as his own). Some of the Old Testament prophets are interesting and probably have merit (Daniel, Isaiah, Elijah, etc).

I think the New Testament is more of a historical document that details first hand accounts of the life of Jesus, Who claimed to be God and Who backed up those claims with miracles.

We both are trying to educate ourselves and read up on these subjects so we can make good solid decisions when it comes to our beliefs. As long as we don't let our prejudices interfere (and we all have them) .. it'll all be good.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Hey, I'm not saying your wrong I just like to question everything and this Jesus story really does make me wonder Maybe I'm wrong but who really knows? When it comes down to it people can take away from both around the conflicting stories.

So the virgin birth in the first place is controversial simply because the entire passage was possibly mis-translated.

Actually, I have participated in almah-betulah discussions, and consistently endorse the Jewish position, which is that Matthew errs in interpreting the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy, not only because of the vocabulary problem, but also because the passage in Isaiah foretells events in Isaiah's own immediate future, not anything to do with a Messiah, and not anything fulfilled centuries later.

Unfortunately for the Green Team, the "prophecy" is only a comment Matthew makes about the facts he reports, not the reason why he believes Mary was a virgin. That basis, too, is discussable, although a Muslim would seem poorly situated to criticize someone else reporting talking with an angel in a dream, if you know what I mean.

Matthew also makes a fact claim about Joseph and Mary's sexual activity before Jesus' birth, and I have no idea about his basis for that, but it would not be inferred from Isaiah's prophecy, which when misunderstood as Matthew did, would concern only conception. Since it also exceeds the information imparted in the dream, Matthew has another source for his statement, bit he doesn't tell what it is.

Luke is more gentlemanly about discussing the sex life of another man's wife. If Luke were all there was on the subject, then I don't think his report compels the conclusion that Mary and Joseph never had sex. What he says is consistent with Matthew, however, and it is the two taken together that supports the Nicene doctrine of the virgin birth. Luke says nothing about the Isaiah prophecy, nor about that dream, either.

This is a big deal also when proving Jesus's divinity.

It is an entirely separate issue.

Finally, while I respect Dr Hoffman's expertise in Hebrew, he is not a New Testament scholar, but rather he is a scholar of the Jewish Bible, the chief scripture of his own religion.

www.lashon.net...

I agree with him completely that Matthew erred in discussing this "prophecy," but that simply isn't why Nicene Chrisitans conclude that Mary hadn't had sex before Jesus was conceived, and isn't why they, unlike Muslims, believe that Jesus had a father, and that Jesus' father was God.

It should also be noted that contemporary Christian Bibles routinely translate Isaiah 7: 14 correctly, so this is a further indication that Matthew's comment isn't crucial to the inference they make. For example, here's the verse in the online Catholic New American Bible:

14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign;* the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.

www.usccb.org...

reply to post by eight bits


And what do we believe? A bunch of Romans after 250 years of persecuting Christians or maybe the Old Testament which could have some prophecies playing out right now without the influence of the New Testament? It seems to me that the New Testament has been fiddled with and if thats the case, the how do we take the whole story as true or fact? I understand some new versions are beginning to omit and change certain verses but the truth is if we translated the texts properly in the first place, we wouldn't have to change anything. All it is proving is that the writings are fraudulant to some degree.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by eight bits

 

And what do we believe? A bunch of Romans after 250 years of persecuting Christians or maybe the Old Testament which could have some prophecies playing out right now without the influence of the New Testament? It seems to me that the New Testament has been fiddled with and if thats the case, the how do we take the whole story as true or fact? I understand some new versions are beginning to omit and change certain verses but the truth is if we translated the texts properly in the first place, we wouldn't have to change anything. All it is proving is that the writings are fraudulant to some degree.

Romans 250 years after persecuting Christians...

what are you talking about?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

What are you talking about?

Go have a look..

Persecution of Christians

The total number of Christians martyred in the early church is unknown. Although some early writers speak of "great multitudes," modern scholars tend to believe the actual number is not so great as is sometimes imagined. Out of the 54 emperors who ruled between 30 and 311 AD, only about a dozen went out of their way to persecute Christians.

It has been calculated that between the first persecution under Nero in 64 to the Edict of Milan in 313, Christians experienced 129 years of persecution and 120 years of toleration and peace. [6]

The Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. Moreover, imperial decrees against Christians were often directed against church property, the Scriptures, or clergy only. It has been estimated that more Christians have been martyred in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years.

Well maybe more have been martyred in the last 50 years because of the population differences... But still, why would these Emperor's do this and then do a complete u-bolt only to recognise what those Christians believed in the first place? To me, they had their own agenda and messed with the true teachings.

We have two current threads on the C-in-R board about the scope and nature of the Roman persecution of Christians. Fascinating though that subject is, The Apostles' Creed on which the Nicene-Constantinople creed is based was written well before the Edict of Milan, which itself took effect two generations before Christianity became the Roman Empire's state religion.

The question of the thread was whether it is possible to be a Christian and a believer in Islam. We seem to agree that it depends on what you think Christian means. Define Christian narrowly and selectively enough (Jesus existed, was the Jewish Messiah, but had no father, neither God nor Joseph nor anybody else, Jesus wasn't executed by the Romans, and of course, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, since he wasn't killed, but he will be coming back some day) and the answer is yes.

Define it in any way that there are actually numerous adherents, and the answer is no. The most numerous are Nicene Christians. But Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Muslims, Mormons aren't Muslims, Quakers aren't Muslims, Unitarians aren't Muslims, Theosophists aren't Muslims, even Baha'i, who revere Jesus and are historically Islamic, aren't currently viewed as Muslims by other Muslims...

But, if somebody wants their very own religion, than Christian Islam, or if you prefer, Islamic Christianity, is theirs for the taking.

reply to post by SpiritofEnoch


It all comes from the same place - Abraham. Nobody can tell me different - Jesus was a Jew who followed Moses, Muhammed was a warrior who followed Moses. It is the same God for sure.

reply to post by eight bits


Well if Christianity has been meddled with then maybe Christianity and Islam aren't so different after all

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch

 

It all comes from the same place - Abraham. Nobody can tell me different - Jesus was a Jew who followed Moses, Muhammed was a warrior who followed Moses. It is the same God for sure.

Jesus followed moses?

That is news to me...

reply to post by DarknStormy


Umm, no. A dude named Constantine converted and ended the persecutions and legalized the faith.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch

 

It all comes from the same place - Abraham. Nobody can tell me different - Jesus was a Jew who followed Moses, Muhammed was a warrior who followed Moses. It is the same God for sure.

Jesus followed moses?

That is news to me...

I think he means the Torah. The books of Moses.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch

 

It all comes from the same place - Abraham. Nobody can tell me different - Jesus was a Jew who followed Moses, Muhammed was a warrior who followed Moses. It is the same God for sure.

Jesus followed moses?

That is news to me...

I think he means the Torah. The books of Moses.

That would sound a little more accurate... Though I don't entirely agree with that either...

Jesus following moses is just incorrect

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Umm, no. A dude named Constantine converted and ended the persecutions and legalized the faith.

It's not about whether Constantine legalised Christianity or not, Its about whether the teachings were meddled with to serve a Roman Agenda.. Going off what I'm seeing today, it wouldn't surprise me.

Originally posted by DarknStormy

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Umm, no. A dude named Constantine converted and ended the persecutions and legalized the faith.

It's not about whether Constantine legalised Christianity or not, Its about whether the teachings were meddled with to serve a Roman Agenda.. Going off what I'm seeing today, it wouldn't surprise me.

The NT books were written long before that transpired. The last book, Revelation was written in 95 AD.

Constantine would be a few centuries later. And not only that, he only legalized the faith, his 2nd successor Theodocius I was the Emperor who made it the official religion of the Empire.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by SpiritofEnoch

 

It all comes from the same place - Abraham. Nobody can tell me different - Jesus was a Jew who followed Moses, Muhammed was a warrior who followed Moses. It is the same God for sure.

Jesus followed moses?

That is news to me...

I think he means the Torah. The books of Moses.

That would sound a little more accurate... Though I don't entirely agree with that either...

Jesus following moses is just incorrect

edit on 24-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

I think he meant Jesus followed/complied with the five books of Moses, the Torah.

It's not about whether Constantine legalised Christianity or not, Its about whether the teachings were meddled with to serve a Roman Agenda.. Going off what I'm seeing today, it wouldn't surprise me.

The problem is that the "teachings" were in a highly developed state once educated pagans converted, which would be a Second Century phenomenon. The actual fights at Fourth Century Nicea, between orthodoxy and Arianism, are what would later be satirized as arguing over whether you crack a boiled egg at the pointy end or at the wide end.

Or, closer still: is Warren Buffet "greater than" Bill Gates because he's older, or are they both "equal," because either one of them has more money than any of us has ever seen in one place? Does it matter to either of them how you answer this question? Would you do anything differently if you decided that Warren Buffet was greater than Bill Gates?

Don't you have something better to do with your time? Of course you do. Priests don't. From that, much follows.

Constantine wasn't the first emperor to legalize Christianity, he was the last. And for all the BS about why he legalized them, the bottom line is that he couldn't have eradicated them if he wanted to (and he didn't want to, because his Mom was a Christian). The empire tried to do it, really tried, right before the turn of the Fourth Century, and failed utterly. Christians were too numerous, too well organized, and too rich.

It's like wondering why liquor manufacture and sales are legal in the United States, and thinking there was some deep reason why Prohibition ended in the 1930's. Sillier still is thinking that Franklin Roosevelt had any influence on American distillery technology.

And, no matter how much the teachings were meddled with, or by whom, that doesn't help Islam. Jesus never taught that he had no father, Jesus didn't predict the coming of Mohammed, Jesus didn't give a speech about his mother's virtue when he was an infant, and prisoner Jesus was professionally dispatched to the world of the dead. Whether he rose from the tomb is debatable; whether the Romans knew how to kill people in their custody really isn't.

reply to post by eight bits

I have already commented on your habit of resorting to ad hominem abuse whenever you get caught faking some claim that anti-Christian claptrap you found in the Koran is corroborated by the Gospels.

What ad homimen? And of course, for someone who doesn't know the Bible too well, statements that "Jesus submitted to God", would come across as claptrap.

After you B&M for a while about how unfair it is to ask you to produce a chapter and verse,

I'm not saying its unfair to be asked to produce a verse and chapter. I do that all the time with Christian opponents.
I'm saying its simply not worth my time to bring agnostics, especially the 'cultural' christian ones... up to speed on religious subjects they lack detailed knowledge on... but want to argue about anyway. I am not obliged to spoon feed and nappy change my opponents on subjects they are not clued into. Producing the verse and chapter would serve no purpose in the long run. Like I said, either do your own reading... or go right ahead and ignore my claim. It makes no difference.

Nobody will notice how you're changing the subject. Nobody will think, "Oh dear, Scorpie's been caught fibbing about Jesus again."

Everybody who knows their Bible would know the exact verse and chapter where Jesus was described as a man who had submitted to God. Except, they'd just rather not bring it up on a thread where they are supposed to be defending their stance that Jesus was God incarnate.
So you're the one in the dark here.