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

page: 15
5
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 




so we don't know what other books of Jewish religious literature, if any, Jesus may have relied upon to form his religious views.


Jesuys said...
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets;

What is the law and who are the prophets? Take a wild guess. Christians would tell you that he was referring to the law and the prophets recorded in the Old Testament.

Going by the Bible, we do see that Jesus born into the Israelite religion being practiced by his people. In fact, Jesus, being the firstborn of Mary.... was even consecrated to God according to the requirements of the Israelite religious law, like any other ordinary Israelite boy of his time.

According to the NT, we see that Jesus' religion contained explicit references to Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, the law, the Shema, the commandments, the Israelite religious festivals etc. It sure looks like the Israelite religion we read about in the Old Testament and I'm sure my Christian opponents here would agree.

Point being, this Israelite religion did NOT have Christian concepts such as God being man or God being a trinity etc. Those were all later Christian inventions injected into the Israelite religion.



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.

Jesus also broke a lot of other laws, but always had sound reasoning behind it.
He was against the priesthoods OCD-ish following of laws in minor matters, while failing to observe the more important parts. This is what he meant when he accused them of 'straining at gnats while swallowing camels'. Jesus and the teachers of the law had different standards of righteousness.

Nonetheless, Jesus instructed his followers to do as they say, but not do as they do... meaning the Israelite law was going nowhere but rather was to remain... until heaven and earth pass away. So Jesus, being messiah and all, was all for the maintenance of the law of his religion.




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




Jesus FULFILLED the Israelite religion. No one separates Him from it ... The Jewish faith is one of prophecy. He fulfilled that faith. He made it obsolete.


How could Jesus have made it obsolete, when he declaring that not the Israelite law would remain "till heaven and earth pass away"?



I personally do not believe that Moses was talking to God


What you have in the burning bush is a different aspect of God. (If God was really there .. which I don't buy into).


Eh? On one hand you say you don't believe it was God speaking at the burning bush....
and on the other, you cite Jesus' saying "I am" to make your case that Jesus was God incarnate.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Scorpie

Continuing to blame me for the non-existence of any verse in the Bible where Jesus "submitted" to Allah is too funny.

As to your second post, there is no issue whether the Jewish Law persists. Visibly, Jews live under their Law to this very day, just as Jesus seemed to think that they always would. As to how closely Jesus' religion rsembled other versions of Judaism current in his time, both Muslims and Christians agree that official Jews tried to kill him. Christians also believe that there were some assassination attempts by Jewish non-officials, too.

Everybody seems to agree, then, that some of what Jesus taught was provocatively different from what some other Jewish teachers taught. It's not especially surprising that Christians would think he was more revoutionary than Muslins do. The only records, though, are the New Testament, and what Mohammed pulled out of his a ... angel ... several centuries later. Unsurprising, too, then, that Christians prefer their own scriptures and think they are better able to read them than, say, the preachers of a different and incompatible religion.

The main current-life issue is whether Gentiles are bound by the Jewish Law. Both Islam and Christianity impose some restrictions derived from the Law on adherents, but the Christians preserved almost none, and far fewer than Islam does.

For the last global Christian regulations, see Acts 15: 29. Few non-vegetarian Christians today refrain from consuming animal blood nor even know how an animal whose meat they eat died. The disuse of the Jerusalem conciliar rules probably reflects the passing of the reason for those regulations, Jewish and Gentile sharing of table at weekly Christian meeting. The marriage kinship restrictions remain influential, but there is no Christian expectation, nor was there ever any, that non-Christian Gentiles were at all bound by the Jewish Law. Not so in Islam, of course.

Which is yet another reason why the answer to the thread-title question is No, except for some private meaning of Christianity, which anybody is entitled to hold if they want, and call by whatever name they like.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Continuing to blame me for the non-existence of any verse in the Bible where Jesus "submitted" to Allah is too funny.


I'm not blaming you at all.
Whats funny is that I am actually referring to a Biblical verse where Jesus was said to have submitted to God. Also, the fact that you don't even believe such a verse exists speaks volumes of your scriptural knowledge.

But continue asking for the particular chapter /verse... continue asking to be spoonfed so you could continue with your argument. Maybe a Christian will post the verse here for you.



edit on 25-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
this Israelite religion did NOT have Christian concepts such as God being man or God being a trinity etc.

So what? They expected the Messiah to be a poltiical messiah who would lead them out of bondage and put them back on top of the food chain in the world. But Jesus came as a spiritual Messiah. The Jews didn't understand their own prophecies. Just because they expected things to unfold a certain way, doesn't mean that is the way God intended them to unfold. Basic human error on the part of the Jews.


Those were all later Christian inventions injected into the Israelite religion.

No. Christianity is NOT the Jewish faith. It's a faith all on it's own.
CHRIST-ianity.
The Jewish faith is based on prophecy, which has all been fulfilled in Jesus.
It is obsolete.


meaning the Israelite law was going nowhere but rather was to remain... until heaven and earth pass away.

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" He fulfilled them. They became obsolete. Christ is the new law.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Eh? On one hand you say you don't believe it was God speaking at the burning bush....
and on the other, you cite Jesus' saying "I am" to make your case that Jesus was God incarnate.

I clearly stated that I don't believe it ... but you people who are quoting scripture and verse do. So I would engage in the conversation using the same tools that you are using. That's what I said. If YOU people buy into Moses and the burning bush ... then YOU people have to acknowledge that 'I AM' is God and Jesus claimed that same title. And even the Jews of His time knew He was claiming to be God because they wanted to stone Him for it. (I already gave the chapter and verse on that earlier).



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
S'n

As Paul explained decades before the Gospels were written, Jesus manifested God in kenosis. The idea may not have been original with Paul, since he appears to be quoting, or both quoting and commenting upon, a pre-existing hymn (Philippians 2: 5-11, the last lines of which are clearly from Isaiah 45; 23). You and i have discussed all that in other threads.

For you to pretend that we haven't shows just one more advantage of professing Islam. Lying in furtherance of the faith is no sin.

It follows from Paul's teaching that anybody can post scripture where Jesus exhibits God in kenosis: Mark 1:9 - 15: 47; Matthew 1:16 - 28: 20; Luke 2: 5 - 24: 51 and John 1: 1 - 21: 23. The tricky part is finding any passage where Jesus discussed Allah, and within that non-existent passage, where Jesus submitted to Allah.

No Chrisitan is going to be posting that verse, Scorpie, because it doesn't exist.

But yet again, this illustrates that the answer to the OP and thread-title question is No. You can profess that God manifested kenosis by incarnating as Jesus, or you can profess that Jesus submitted to Allah, or you can profess neither, calling that whatever you please, but you can't profess both.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Continuing to blame me for the non-existence of any verse in the Bible where Jesus "submitted" to Allah is too funny. .


Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Whats funny is that I am actually referring to a Biblical verse where Jesus was said to have submitted to God.

There is NOTHING in scripture saying that Jesus submitted to Allah.
Allah is not in the bible.
And neither is Muhammad. That 'interpretation' is forced by the Muslims.
It's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

There is evidence that Jesus submitted to the will of God the Father.
That is because Jesus, who is part of the Trinity, was showing us how
we should live .. in submission to the will of God. It wasn't because
Jesus was in opposition to the will of God and it wasn't because Jesus
was totally human and not part of God .. it was because He was showing
us what He wanted us to do ... submit to the will of God.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



There is NOTHING in scripture saying that Jesus submitted to Allah.

I was referring to a Biblical scripture that says Jesus submitted to God.


There is evidence that Jesus submitted to the will of God the Father.

Submitting to the will of God is as good as submitting to God himself.


That is because Jesus, who is part of the Trinity, was showing us how we should live .. in submission to the will of God.

No, it was because Jesus indeed knew he had to submit to God.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



No Chrisitan is going to be posting that verse, Scorpie, because it doesn't exist.

Don't be so sure about that. That verse exists. You just happen to be too ignorant of the Bible to know the particular verse and chapter...which is why you have been asking me to post it.



posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

Hey FF! Sorry for the late response, I was away for a while.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Dude ... Jesus is fully God and fully Human. He was both.
That's what is in Scripture. Quotes for both because He IS both.

The muslims here are cherry picking just the 'Human' quotes.

The verse I quoted had nothing to do with proving Jesus's "Human quotes" or whatever. I have no need for that, because the fact that he was human is undeniable. My quote was more about explaining the RELATIONSHIP between Jesus and God and us. And if we take the quote I quoted, then your "FULLY MAN AND FULLY GOD" mantra falls to pieces unless you also accept that Christianity is polytheistic (there is more than 1 God). That verse, tells us that Jesus has not ascended to HIS God and OUR God, HIS Father and OUR Father. And who are we to Jesus? We are his brothers (or he is our servant, if you check another passage). So claiming that this is just an example of a passage about Jesus's humanity doesn't cut it. It is all laid out in what he said there.

While it may be interesting for Biblical scholars how Jesus was actually quoting Ruth, it doesn't take away from the content of what he said in any way. In fact, it only leads to negate the argument that adjensen was trying to put forward: that separating MY and YOUR was some indicator of difference between the two (unless you do the same for Ruth, and I've never heard anyone ever call her the only begotten daughter of God).

And repeatedly parroting the example of a clover leaf really doesn't help. It may be a cute call-back to when St. Patrick used it 1600 years ago, but it made just as little sense then as it does now. If I ripped off one bit of the shamrock, it ceases to be a shamrock. If I hold up that ripped piece of the shamrock in my hand, I can't call it a shamrock. One bit of the shamrock doesn't have a different will from the other, one bit of the shamrock doesn't have less knowledge than the other, one bit of the shamrock won't suggest that the other bit is "Greater".

And I see again you claim that the New Testament was "documentation from first hand accounts and eyewitness". Sorry to have to point it out again for the umpteenth time, it was neither first hand accounts, and nor was it from eyewitnesses.

And as Scorpion already pointed out, the law cannot have become obsolete, can't have become a "new law", because in the very passage you quote (Matthew 5:17), that won't happen until heaven and earth disappear (i.e. never), and thus we are exhorted by Jesus himself, to follow those laws.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Visibly, Jews live under their Law to this very day,


Well, not really. That's why Jamnia was convened. After 70 D there was no longer a temple standing for them to follow the Torah.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



Don't be so sure about that. That verse exists. You just happen to be too ignorant of the Bible to know the particular verse and chapter...which is why you have been asking me to post it.


Correct me if im wrong here....

But doesn't Allah mean "the God"?

You don't have to have knowledge of the bible to understand one concept... Jesus didn't ever use any name when he spoke about God... He called him God or the Father...

So in a way Allah is closer to the truth then any name Christians and Jews have "given" him...




posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



You don't have to have knowledge of the bible to understand one concept...


Thats all there is to it.

Muslims worship the God who
-created the universe,
-created Adam
- guided Noah, Abraham, Moses and all the other prophets
- sent Jesus

If Christians deny this, then they deny the worship and prayers directed to God by over a billion muslims.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


That's a pretty silly argument. I never call my dad by his first name either.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


That is hardly the same thing...

unless of course you consider your dad to be the creator of the universe...





posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Akragon
 



You don't have to have knowledge of the bible to understand one concept...


Thats all there is to it.

Muslims worship the God who
-created the universe,
-created Adam
- guided Noah, Abraham, Moses and all the other prophets
- sent Jesus

If Christians deny this, then they deny the worship and prayers directed to God by over a billion muslims.




Why do you insist they accept who you worship?

Do you think their opinions of you matter in the least to God?

edit on 26-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Why do you insist they accept who you worship?

Do you think their opinions of you matter in the least to God?


Eh, no it doesn't.

Did I give you the impression that they have to accept my beliefs? If so that wasn't my intention... I'm just stating things as they are. They can take it or leave it.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   
S'n

Bait much?


If Christians deny this, then they deny the worship and prayers directed to God by over a billion muslims.


That depends on the Christian. Some do. The majority, however, belong to churches that teach that God grants through Jesus to each person a conscience and asks only that the person follow its guidance. In those churches, if Allah is the only light you know, and so you turn to him, then that is fine with Jesus. Same with Krishna, or even atheist conceptions. Christians have killed each other over just this point, and even living Christians have condemned other Chrisitans to hell for saying it.

It's hard to generalize, then. Well, not for you personally, but hard to generalize truthfully about.

NotUrTypical

It is not news to anybody participating in this thread that the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, and that Rabbinical Judaism stems from that. Since Judaism historically has often existed in the absence of any central Temple, it is not at all obvious that Jews today aren't living authentically under their Law, just as much as, say, David did.

In any case, Jesus did not predict that the Second Temple was going to persist indefinitely. Jesus' teachings about the Law were addressed to Jews. On the few occasions where he spoke to Gentiles, he did not direct them to live according to the Law, and the Great Commission does not instruct his apostles to place Gentiles under the Law, either. Thus, Christians and Muslims differ on whether the Law binds Gentiles, which difference is what bears on the thread-title question.

babloyi


I have no need for that, because the fact that he was human is undeniable.


Which works out nicely, because nobody has denied it. What has been denied is that being human excludes being God. Even then, nobody has denied that being human excludes being the particular god Allah. Thus, the answer to the OP question is "No."


That verse, tells us that Jesus has not ascended to HIS God and OUR God, HIS Father and OUR Father.


You accomplished your reading by supplying punctuation that is not in the original, as everyone must, and yours denied that Jesus is quoting Ruth 1: 16. I assume it was simply a mistake, and not a deliberate lie, to present your choice of punctuation as if it was literally there in the original. Regardless, it is not in the original; every reader must choose.

And yes, nobody denies that Jesus is telling Mary that he is ascending to the Father, his and hers alike.


(unless you do the same for Ruth, and I've never heard anyone ever call her the only begotten daughter of God).


That wasn't Jesus' purpose in quoting Ruth, nor John's reason for including that bit of dialog in the scene. Jesus was a Jewish preacher. He dispensed situationally appropriate citations of Jewish scripture as his job. The scene is a parting; Jesus never sees Mary again in John. The scriptural allusion Jesus chooses is appropriate for a parting scene, a time of human emotional importance.


may be a cute call-back to when St. Patrick used it 1600 years ago, ...


There is no evidence that Patrick ever used any such story. Ireland was the first national scale conversion to Christianity without bloodshed on either side. One factor in that success is the intuitive obviousness of the Trinitarian conception of God within the pre-existing religious thinking of the Irish. It is regrettable that we have nobody on the board who presents Christianity from the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox position. There, too, it is the intuitive appeal of the Trinitarian concept which dominates their acceptance of it.

Obviously, to share such intuition, it is necessary to discard the politically correct notion that Allah and the Trinity are both the same God. Plainly that is a contradiction. There is no contradiction, however, between monotheism and a single God understood as the Trinity is understood. As noted, the Irish already understood that before Jesus revealed it. It took the Incarnation of God in order for the Greeks and Romans to catch up.
-
edit on 26-3-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Jesus is quoting Ruth 1: 16.


You don't think that is a bit of a stretch, considering that isn't even the exact quote or the context?






new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join