Islam and Christianity (Jesus, priests, reject, Moses, Torah)

[Scott1]

Since a previous thread didn't seem to do anything but fall on its face.... I'll try again:

Can a Muslim explain to me whether Christianity is corrupted or just incomplete.

Thanks,
Scott

[jamaesi]

Islam's view is that Christianity came from the Jewish teachings but got a little lost on the way, but of course, it's so hard to make a blanket statement here because there are so many sects of Christianity and they all vary from slightly different to profoundly different.

The message of Islam is to continue G-d's message from Judaism and through Christianity. Islam restates many aspects of Christianity, sometimes accepting with a bit of a different interpretation. Other parts of Christianity are rejected, but some Christian sects also reject the same parts also.

We don't consider the whole of Christianity to be corrupted, but some parts to be incompatible with our view.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Khalila

Islam's view is that Christianity came from the Jewish teachings but got a little lost on the way, but of course, it's so hard to make a blanket statement here because there are so many sects of Christianity and they all vary from slightly different to profoundly different.

Fair enough... but I come from an orthodox Christian faith... where the basic tenents still followed today where tought long before Mohammed was even born....

We don't consider the whole of Christianity to be corrupted, but some parts to be incompatible with our view.

Why should a Christian care about revelation from a man born 500 years after the death of Christ (or should we not care)???

I guess I don't understand how any Muslim could believe they know more about Christ than first or even second century Christians?

Any insight?

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Why should a Christian care about revelation from a man born 500 years after the death of Christ (or should we not care)???

Scott, uh, not to sound combative or anything but to illustrate a relationship, but why would a Jew care about revelation from a man born centuries after Moses and the other Prophets?

As a Christian, surely it is easy for you to understand why you would care about Christ, yes? But someone who is Jewish doesn't care about revelations that Christ came with.

From a Muslim's pov, of course they care about Muhammad and what He said, the same way as you care about Christ.

Take it another step from my pov, and I care about Moses and other neviim (sp?), Christ and Muhammad, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also care about revelation from a man born in the 19th century that founded my religion.

As for whether a Christian or anyone else should care -- only insofar as they might consider anyone claiming a revelation might be genuine.

If a Christian decided there was a later prophet, then one presumes they would no longer be Christian. If they don't, they're following Christ anyway, so keep following.

I guess I don't understand how any Muslim could believe they know more about Christ than first or even second century Christians?

From a Muslim (or even Baha'i) pov, if God sent a Messenger in the person of Muhammad and He corrected something that was a misunderstanding in Christianity, then you gotta go with what God said most recently.

I do take exception to some common beliefs about Christ, as I believe them to be based on misunderstandings themselves, but I stand in relationship to those Muslim interpretations in exactly the same way as they stand in relation to your Christian interpretations.

I believe Baha'u'llah was a Prophet, and He explained how the idea that Jesus didn't die physically on the cross and how the notion of corruption of the (NT) texts was a misunderstanding.

To a Muslim who doesn't believe that Baha'u'llah was a Prophet, of course they would have no reason to believe Baha'u'llah over a long standing belief within their own faith.

As long as no one starts pointing guns over the differences, that's really all I care about.

[Anastasios]

In fact it is large topic and maybe a necessary one. But i guess, even muslims may have different ideas about that.

My main concern about Christianity is when it was shaped as a religion. For example, Judaism was established by Moses together the the Law, Torah and together with the later additions of the later scriptures from prophets, Old testament was compiled. This Law and founder prophet combination is the same in Islam too. So, for us in order to establish a religion this are main requirements. So, there should be a founder prophet and a Law.

But the case of Christianity, Jesus and Gospel is different. We believe (at least I, since there may be other muslims who think different), Jesus's mission was not to bring a new religion, but his mission was to fix the errors in practising the Jewish divine Law, Old Testament, and to bring the people back to the right way of understanding the divine scriptures. Gospel has never been written (mybe it was but we have no evidence for its existence in early times) in the time of Jesus and long time after him. The Gospel of Mark is believed to be the earliest one dated aorun 50-70 AD. But still there is no certainty about their dates, the only certainty is they are not before 50 AD. The Gospels reveals a revising process (Luke revising Matthew which itself is a revision of Mark). The later Gospel writers copied from the earlier Gospels, and many times "improved" the image of Jesus. According to Quran, there should be only one Gospel which was in the mind Jesus himself as the logos of God, but it was not written. And Gospel is not a Law, but an approach to the existing scriptures. The Gospels are written through memories (as we believe), or thorugh revelations to Apostles (as Christians believe). Apart from Gospels, more texts from different individuals were added and called as New Testament, finally it was compiled together with Old Testament, and this new production was called as Bible. Scientific researches find a load of mistakes especially in New Testament, and of course manu later additions and alterations.

Christianity was established as a "religion" centuries after Jesus, and officially accepted in the middle of 4th century, when Council of Nicaea was gathered by Constantine (325 AD). In the first time in Christian history, Jesus was accepted as God in this council, and also God as his father (both are literally). Then in 380 AD in the counsel of Athanasius, Holy Spirit was attached to them, so basic doctrine of Trinity was formed.

So christianity became a religion much later than Jesus. It was all related the church history and policy. It will be a bit absurd but i will say "Jesus was not a Christian". Logically he cannot be a Christian! Becasue there was no christianity when he was alive, even in some centuries there was no a christianity in the sense of what we understand from Christianty today.

So for me, briefly, the cruces, which put Christianity in a different place and complicated, are:

1- The mission and intension of Jesus
2- The Gospels, New Testament and Bible trilogy. And authenticity of especially New Testament.
3- The Development of Christianity as a Religion and church issues.

So after I will say, since you follow both Old Testament (but you disregard some practises) and New Testament, we consider you as amongst the People of Book.

Regards

[jamaesi]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Why should a Christian care about revelation from a man born 500 years after the death of Christ (or should we not care)???

I don't know. If they're content in their faith what other faiths believe shouldn't really bother them.

Originally Posted by Scott1

I guess I don't understand how any Muslim could believe they know more about Christ than first or even second century Christians?

Any insight?

Because we believe we were getting revelations straight from G-d, much like y'all do.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Booko

From a Muslim's pov, of course they care about Muhammad and what He said, the same way as you care about Christ.

Amen.... and I would accept that from Muslims if they were honest like that... but I don't EVER hear that.... only the standard Muslim apologist lines like we see in the above thread by Anastasios.

As long as no one starts pointing guns over the differences, that's really all I care about.

Again... amen to that.... I guess I just have a problem with the fact that most of the Muslims that chat with me can't say one positive thing about Islam without first pointing out 10 perceived errors of Christianity.... I guess I'm just tired of it.

Speaking of which:

Originally Posted by Anastasios

Christianity was established as a "religion" centuries after Jesus, and officially accepted in the middle of 4th century, when Council of Nicaea was gathered by Constantine (325 AD).

Not even close.

The Church was born on Pentecost not more than a few months after the death of Christ and had most of the basics of the faith since then.... geez, even the Mass itself was formed by the year 155... along with a system of Bishops, priests, and deacons.... the Church has only changed in small ways some 2,000 years later.

Our faith came LONG before the Bible.... I guess you just have not researched the history of Roman Catholics/Orthodox Christians.... it's easy to refute the Protestants who use the "bible alone" as their theology, but that's not us my friend.

Hope that helps... I'd be happy to give you several examples of organized Church structure and dogma long before Nicea if you'd like... but I'm guessing you won't be interested in having your preconceived notions blown out of the water.

Peace,
S

[astarath]

Ahhh yes the concept of Orthodoxy vs Protestant but what about the Christian faiths from the exact same period as the orthodoxy who followed the Law of Moses extrapolated by Christ's sermon on the mount who meet the satisfaction of those brothers in God and were slaughtered as heretics by the orthodox church because their views were different?!??!

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by astarath

Ahhh yes the concept of Orthodoxy vs Protestant but what about the Christian faiths from the exact same period as the orthodoxy who followed the Law of Moses extrapolated by Christ's sermon on the mount who meet the satisfaction of those brothers in God and were slaughtered as heretics by the orthodox church because their views were different?!??!

What does that have to do with the OP?

[astarath]

It has to do with the concept of christianity being complete especially when linked to earlier comments in the discussion that show specifically that Orthodox Christians may not be accepted but other factions of Christianity can be.. such as the Ebionites!!!