It is for God alone to judge amongst us who is the most faithful follower of Christ.
I agree with that completely.
The problem is some Christians are happy to criticise Islam because of violence but then become quite uncomfortable when confronted with their own history.
The violence perpetrated by Christians against other Christians and other peoples of Faith and justified with Christian theology is one of the clearest signs of the corruption within Christendom, don't you think?
I didn't want to really discuss this at this time, but since you insist we can. First of all, I'm not denying that there is a lot of blood shed in the Christian history e.g. the Crusades, Inquisitions etc. but one must ask whether this is an accurate reflection of what Christ taught. As I mentioned before, Christ condemned violence of any kind. St Augustine said that we shouldn't judge any philosophy by its abuse. Christ put a end to this 'eye for eye' ideology through the establishment of the New covenant.
That being said, was the violent actions of Muhammad going against the teachings of the Quran? Not at all, and that is the difference. Muslims claim that Islam is a 'peaceful religion', but if the penalty for apostasy is death, can you really call that a peaceful religion?
They would love to see you disbelieve, just as they disbelieve, so you would become equal. So do not befriend any of them, unless they emigrate in the way of Allah. If they turn away, seize them and execute them wherever you may find them; and do not take from among them allies or supporters. - Quran 4:89
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - Sahih Bukari (4:52:260)
Muslims also say that Jihadis take scripture out of context to justify their motives. But are they really taking it out of context? Are they not just following what Muhammad did back in the day?
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor abide by the religion of truth—from among those who received the Scripture [Jews and Christians]—until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly. (Quran 9:29)
Say, “Obey Allah and the Messenger.” But if they turn away—Allah does not love the faithless. (Quran 3:32)
When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they re-pent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran 9:5)
Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties in exchange for Paradise. They fight in Allah’s way, and they kill and get killed. It is a promise binding on Him in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Quran. And who is more true to his promise than Allah? So rejoice in making such an ex-change—that is the supreme triumph. (Quran 9:111)
Were the Crusaders and Inquisitors following the example of Christ? No, not a single verse supports what they did.
Of course it took time for the apostles to appreciate and understand the Message of Christ. Christ taught them, and yet His chosen successor Peter denied him thrice.
Peter never denied Christ's teachings, he just denied knowing him because was scared of being arrested alongside Jesus. However Jesus recommissions him as an Apostle in John 21:15.
This is Peter's opening statement at the beginning of the Apostle's ministry:
'Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children [the Jews], and to all who are afar off [the Gentiles], as many as the Lord our God will call.”' Acts 2:38-39
So Peter had a good knowledge of the new covenant from the very beginning and never stopped preaching until his martyrdom by crucifixion.
But that is besides the point which is that most of the nations were totally oblivious to anything to do with Christ until centuries later. A just God would hardly condemn them for not accepting or following someone they had not ever heard of, would they? Unfortunately some Christians present God as a mean and unjust God who would do just that.
Apostle Paul writes:
'Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”' Acts 17:29-31
Will Yahweh condemn those who have never heard the Gospel of Christ? It says here that God will overlook such times of ignorance, and Christians ultimately believe that judgment lies with God.
However can you really say that 6th/7th century Arab was a time of ignorance? The Quran makes mention of the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) as well as the Torah and Gospel. And why would you even say that they never heard of Jesus?
So while the Gospel was to be preached to all nations so too were the Teachings of Buddha and Muhammad. Obviously its going to be the best interests for each one of us to accept the messengers of God, but we need to accept them all, not just the Ones that suits us.
Monotheistic religions are intolerant of pluralistic beliefs, just as pluralistic religions are intolerant of monotheistic beliefs. It's one and the same thing. The Baha'i faith condemns any religions for claiming exclusivity for itself, and yet by doing so, it has made itself exclusive in the process.
Because for Baha'is one interpretation is the tares representing the false doctrines and teachings of the church, along with the true Teachings of Christ. So in this age when the books of religion our thrown open for all to see its time to gather up the tares of false doctrine and throw them in the fire.
Matthew 13:36 speaks of those that promote such false teachings yet bear the name of Jesus.
This is further explained in
Matthew 25:31-46
Corrupt theology may also be well symbolised by the white horseman of the apocalpyse in the book of revelation:
I agree with everything you say here. The question is what do you consider to be false doctrines of the church? Did Christ want us to accept new revelations from other prophets after him? Clearly Jesus said the Holy Spirit was going to stay with us forever (John 14:16) so why would we need someone else (esp another human being) to reveal his teachings?
He fulfilled some of the prophecies but not all of the prophecies.
For example
Isaiah 2:2-5,
Isaiah 9:6-7 or
Isaiah 11:1 or
Isaiah 11:6-10
You are right in saying Isaiah 2:2-5; Isaiah 11:6-10 has not been fulfilled yet. Jesus' second coming has not happened yet so the millennial kingdom has not yet been established.
With regards to Isaiah 11:1, if you read Matthew 1:5, Jesus did indeed descend from the line of Jesse.
With regards to what we know about Christ (birth, life, death, resurrection) the prophecies have been fulfilled. There are eschatological prophecies that have yet to come true, such as the second coming of Jesus, which Muslims also believe.
This doesn't make too much sense though. It sounds as if you are taking the sacrifice narrative of the apostles very literally.
I think you are confusing the term 'Law and Prophets'. It's simply referring to the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), not the apostles themselves.
Jesus certainly had the authority from God to bring a New Revelation from God. He was not a reformer of Judaism though. He brought a new religion.
'“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. ' - Matthew 5:17
Christianity is a fulfillment of the prophecies written in the Jewish faith, not the start of a new religion. Many people believed the same thing back in Jesus' time, which is why he made this statement. If you read Jesus' sermon on the Mount, he repeats much of Moses' teachings on morality.
He may have brought an end to the law for the small number of Jews that followed Him.
The book of Romans was written for the believers in Rome, which was predominantly a Gentile audience.
For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”' Romans 10:11-13