Are Muslims better Christians than Christians themselves?

[sojourner]

Being a Muslim doesn't mean you are following the religion that we now call Islam it also refers to the monotheistic religions revealed to other messengers since you agreed on the definition and that the messenger did follow the will of god then you agree that they were Muslims in definition.

That may be what it means to you, but it certainly isn't universally defined in that way.
Islam may be all about "doing God's will," but Xy is all about being reconciled to God and living within God's kingdom. "Doing God's will" may be implied in that process, but there's a fine theological distinction between "doing God's will" and "living within God's will."
Y'all go right on ahead and be Muslim, doing God's will. Meanwhile, we Xtians are content to be God's will.

 

[Me Myself]

I would say that a "good christian" is one who follows Christ's example of peace, love, forgiveness, compassion and acceptance.

Amen

 

[F0uad]

That may be what it means to you, but it certainly isn't universally defined in that way.
Islam may be all about "doing God's will," but Xy is all about being reconciled to God and living within God's kingdom. "Doing God's will" may be implied in that process, but there's a fine theological distinction between "doing God's will" and "living within God's will."
Y'all go right on ahead and be Muslim, doing God's will. Meanwhile, we Xtians are content to be God's will.

Yes as the Op stated Christians do not live within god's will there is your problem already, since the Christian belief is that each soul sins and is not perfect then living within god's will can never be completed or reached only trying to submit to the will of god as muslims do.

 

[Caladan]

The levels of self righteousness in this thread are only topped by astounding ignorance of Christianity.

 

[F0uad]

The levels of self righteousness in this thread are only topped by astounding ignorance of Christianity.

Agrees the ignorance should be highlighted though.

 

[Gharib]

Not even close to the message of Jesus.

Yeah I didn't mention the 'Salvation through Jesus' part. I don't believe that to be true. I can say it in this way though, 'Obey God for your Salvation and a life of eternity in Paradise.'

But are you saying that the Bible doesn't teach of all the stuff I mentioned?

 

[Pegg]

Yes as the Op stated Christians do not live within god's will there is your problem already, since the Christian belief is that each soul sins and is not perfect then living within god's will can never be completed or reached only trying to submit to the will of god as muslims do.

how do you know what Gods will is if you reject all the books written by the previous prophets?

 

[Gharib]

how do you know what Gods will is if you reject all the books written by the previous prophets?

Muslims don't reject the previous books though. They aren't/weren't written by the Prophets, they were sent/revealed to them.

 

[Pegg]

Muslims don't reject the previous books though.

dont you carry the belief that the holy bible is corrupted and so cannot be considered to contain the true message of God?

They aren't/weren't written by the Prophets, they were sent/revealed to them.

the prophets of the hebrew scriptures wrote in scrolls and gave the written scroll to the priests or the king of Isreal.

EG,
Rev 1:10 By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a strong voice like that of a trumpet, 11 saying: “What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven congregations

Habakkuk 2:2 And Jehovah proceeded to answer me and to say: “Write down [the] vision, and set [it] out plainly upon tablets

Exodus 17:14 Jehovah now said to Moses: “Write this as a memorial in the book and propound it in Joshua’s ears, ‘I shall completely wipe out the remembrance of Am′a·lek from under the heavens.’”

Deuteronomy 27:8 And you must write on the stones all the words of this law, making them quite clear.


So the prophets were under instruction from God to write the message of God and deliver it to the isrealites. Their messages have been compiled into the 66 books of the holy bible...each book contains a different message given at different times in history.

 

[Gharib]

dont you carry the belief that the holy bible is corrupted and so cannot be considered to contain the true message of God?

Yes, but do Muslims believe that Jesus and Moses were sent a scripture from God? Yes.

Do we believe that some parts of those scriptures still exist? Yes.

the prophets of the hebrew scriptures wrote in scrolls and gave the written scroll to the priests or the king of Isreal.

So the prophets were under instruction from God to write the message of God and deliver it to the isrealites. Their messages have been compiled into the 66 books of the holy bible...each book contains a different message given at different times in history.

OK, I guess it makes no difference whether they wrote it themselves of had it revealed and passed it on to their followers. They still received a revelation orally from God through Gabriel.

 

[Pegg]

Yes, but do Muslims believe that Jesus and Moses were sent a scripture from God? Yes.

Do we believe that some parts of those scriptures still exist? Yes.

ok, so where is the scriptures given to Jesus? I've never read anything from Jesus apostles about such scriptures....the only scriptures Jesus used were the Hebrew scriptures. He quotes from them over and over, but as far is im aware, never did he speak from any other scriptures nor did he himself put anything new into writing.

OK, I guess it makes no difference whether they wrote it themselves of had it revealed and passed it on to their followers. They still received a revelation orally from God through Gabriel.

Yes, they recieved the message from God and wrote it down...whether it was Gabriel specifically who delivered such message, the bible doesnt say. However the prophet Daniel did say that Micheal the Arch angle was the angle who was guiding the Isrealites through the wilderness and so for that reason I would conclude that it was actually Micheal who delivered most of the messages to the prophets.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, you are right in that the vision was symbolic of allowing gentiles into the congregation, however, the christians came to understand it to be evidence that the new covenant had come into effect and the old mosaic law covenant was no long binding on those who wanted a relationship with God.

Well then those "Christians" were reading something into the text that's not there just like they do with most of their other doctrines. I posit that there was absolutely no intention in Acts 10 of saying the dietary laws were null and void, and that the "Christians" who read into it that it does are missing the point where it specifically explains that it was a metaphorical vision to suit their convenience. Besides, why would meat from strangled animals be forbidden? That's not exclusive to pagan customs. Why would blood be forbidden? That's not exclusive to pagan customs.

Think about it, the mosaic law itself only allows gentiles into the covenant if they meet the requirements and convert to Judaism...yet those christian gentiles were being brought into a covenant with God WITHOUT meeting the requirements of the mosaic law.

They were allegedly brought into the covenant according to the Book of Acts and Paul's view, whether the Nazarenes and Ebionites considered them part of the Covenant is another question. And then there's the issue of the authenticity of the historicity of Acts 15. Even Paul denies teaching against obedience to Mosaic Law in the end of Acts and seems to indicate a belief in the Law in Romans 3:31 and 2:13, the issue is clouded.

And then, Paul even says "As the Law says" when he says that women should submit to their husbands. That would be pointless to say "As the Law says" if the Law is not binding. So was Paul picking and choosing what parts of the Law he thought were still binding?

They were not circumcised, they did not worship at the temple, they were not wearing the proper clothing as required under the law, they ate 'unclean' foods etc etc and yet, God poured out his holy spirit upon them.

How do we know the Spirit was poured on them exactly? Where does it say that such gentiles got into the Act? The only reference I'm aware of is the initial all-Jewish church receiving it. Paul writes about it in Corinthians but we don't know who did and didn't have it, and Corinthians has very little anti-Torah semblance.

So the apostles reasoned that if God was pouring out holy spirit on gentiles who were not followers of mosaic law, then it must mean the mosaic law was not a requirement as it once had been.

Funny, I don't think James and Peter ever thought that. Also, from where do you derive that they thought the lawless gentiles had the Spirit in them? Can you prove that the Council of Jerusalem's decision was based on the idea that they figured Gentiles were being filled with the Spirit? Be careful with assertions about the Spirit, I must warn you.

Do you not think Jesus specifically commanded obedience to the Mosaic Law himself or do you not go by what Jesus taught? Matthew 5:17-20 trumps all.

 

[OneTwo]

It seems like many of you missed the point of this thread, I wanted to show that even though we say we are Muslims or Christians or Jews, we practice the same things. We have a lot of similarities within our 'religions'.

I also said, Muslims follow the teachings of Christianity, more than some Christians do. Which is a fact, so why for all the nonsense that you put up here?

What is the point of the Bible if Christians don't follow everything in it?
It's a simple question, not one which requires sarcasm or for you to say some sections of Christianity do follow or do not follow? How can you be a part of a religion, if you don't even follow fully what is in your own scripture?

But I think many of you will fail to address this question, but give me some jargon about some other stuff which I haven't asked for, so I'll say this; If I have offended anyone by my thread, then I do apologise.

 

[Pegg]

Well then those "Christians" were reading something into the text that's not there... Why would blood be forbidden? That's not exclusive to pagan customs.

Blood has always been forbidden in the mosaic law and even before the mosaic law was written. The law was originally given to Noah and the bible does explain why the law on blood is given.

Genesis 9:1 And God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.... 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. ...4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat. 5 And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back.

Leviticus 3:17 “‘It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”

Leviticus 7:26 “‘And YOU must not eat any blood in any places where YOU dwell, whether that of fowl or that of beast.

And this verse gives the reason why blood was not to be eaten:
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only the blood YOU must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water...23 Simply be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul and you must not eat the soul with the flesh

The christian congregation, at the direction of the jewish apostles located in Jerusalem gave the order to gentile believers (people from the nations) that they need only adhere to a handful of the mosaic laws:
Acts 15:22 Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men..23 and by their hand they wrote:
“...28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things,
to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”

Paul was simply one of the messengers who took the letter from the apostles back to the congregations to inform them of the decision made by the apostles on the matter of mosaic law.

Read the entire account of Acts 15:1-35.

Even Paul denies teaching against obedience to Mosaic Law in the end of Acts and seems to indicate a belief in the Law in Romans 3:31 and 2:13, the issue is clouded.

there is a difference between being in a covenant relationship with God based on the mosaic law covenant, and the laws of God in general which a God fearing and righteous person would strive to live by.

Paul does say that the Law was “holy,” “good,” “fine” (Ro 7:12, 16), and anyone who could fully live up to this perfect Law would prove himself a perfect man, worthy of life. (Ro 10:5; Ga 3:12) But considering we are all sinful by nature, it would be impossible anyway.

Even isreal could not abide perfectly by the law and for that reasons, sacrifices for sins could be offered as part of the covenant. Although, without a temple and high priest, no sacrifices for sins can be given to God...so how can someone under mosaic law approach God if they have no high priest to mediate and offer their sacrifices for sins? Without a mediator, how is the mosaic law administered?

And then, Paul even says "As the Law says" when he says that women should submit to their husbands. That would be pointless to say "As the Law says" if the Law is not binding. So was Paul picking and choosing what parts of the Law he thought were still binding?

The mosaic laws are perfect and they show us what we must strive towards. The covenant of Moses and Isreal with God is not the means by which we approach God anymore...that is the difference.

We are still striving to live by Gods perfect laws, but it is on the bases of Jesus Christ, not on the basis of the covenant God made with Isreal.

How do we know the Spirit was poured on them exactly? Where does it say that such gentiles got into the Act?

The account in Acts 10 explains the Apostle Peters visit to Cornelius. Peter and other jewish brothers testified to the pouring out of holy spirit upon the uncircumcised gentiles.

Acts 10;44 While Peter was yet speaking about these matters the holy spirit fell upon all those hearing the word. 45 And the faithful ones that had come with Peter who were of those circumcised were amazed, because the free gift of the holy spirit was being poured out also upon people of the nations. 46 For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter responded: 47 “Can anyone forbid water so that these might not be baptized who have received the holy spirit even as we have?”

Funny, I don't think James and Peter ever thought that. Also, from where do you derive that they thought the lawless gentiles had the Spirit in them? Can you prove that the Council of Jerusalem's decision was based on the idea that they figured Gentiles were being filled with the Spirit? Be careful with assertions about the Spirit, I must warn you.

Peter's explanation was reported by Lukes account in Acts 11....not only was Cornelius directed by the mouth of an angel, but Peter was also directed in vision to go to Cornelius thus indicating that it was at Gods direction:

11:13 “He reported to us how he saw the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Dispatch men to Jop′pa and send for Simon who is surnamed Peter, 14 and he will speak those things to you by which you and all your household may get saved.’ 15 But when I started to speak, the holy spirit fell upon them just as it did also upon us in [the] beginning. 16 At this I called to mind the saying of the Lord, how he used to say, ‘John, for his part, baptized with water, but YOU will be baptized in holy spirit.’ 17 If, therefore, God gave the same free gift to them as he also did to us who have believed upon the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should be able to hinder God?”

During the discussions in Jerusalem about the mosaic law and the gentiles, James made a speech highlighting how certain scriptures were seeing fulfillment:

Acts 15:13 After they quit speaking, James answered, saying: “Men, brothers, hear me. 14 Sym′e·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.
this idea is in harmony with Isaiah 55:5
Look! A nation that you do not know you will call, and those of a nation who have not known you will run even to you,

Then James specifically mentions a prophecy
Acts 15:15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I shall return and rebuild the booth of David that is fallen down; and I shall rebuild its ruins and erect it again, 17 in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations,...
Now this prophecy is from Amos 9
11 “‘In that day I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen,...12 to the end that they may take possession of what is left remaining of E′dom, and all the nations upon whom my name has been called,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, who is doing this

So there is plenty of hebrew scriptural evidence that God would eventually bring gentiles, people of the nations, into his worship and this is why the brothers concluded that the mosaic law covenant was not the reason why God was doing that.
It wasnt because these gentiles were becoming proselytes, rather it was because they were putting faith in the name of Jesus Christ and had accepted him as the Messiah promised in the hebrew scritpures. They were motivated by their own hearts to worship God and that is one of Gods requirements...'you must love your God with your whole heart'

Do you not think Jesus specifically commanded obedience to the Mosaic Law himself or do you not go by what Jesus taught? Matthew 5:17-20 trumps all.

well again, there is a difference between following the laws of Moses as a means of coming into the covenant he made with Isreal, and obeying Gods perfect laws because you want to please God....and yes, i do believe Jesus promoted obedience to Gods laws 100%.

However, the purpose of the mosaic covenant with Isreal was to give them a land and make them a nation as promised to the patriarch Abraham. The covenant solidified that arrangement as Moses stated:

Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant that Jehovah commanded Moses to conclude with the sons of Israel in the land of Mo′ab aside from the covenant that he had concluded with them in Ho′reb...13 for the purpose of establishing you today as his people...just as he has sworn to your forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...
30:20... that you may dwell upon the ground that Jehovah swore to your forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to give to them.”

Now ask yourself, if the covenant was for the purpose of making a nation to dwell on the ground promised to Abraham, how on earth are all nations meant to enter that covenant? Are we all expected to move over to Isreal? That would be impossible.

And so enter the new covenant...the one spoken of by Jeremiah....the covenant that all the nations enter into for salvation.

 

[Caladan]

It seems like many of you missed the point of this thread, I wanted to show that even though we say we are Muslims or Christians or Jews, we practice the same things. We have a lot of similarities within our 'religions'.

Do you practice New Age Islam? Is this Hallal dogma? :spit:

I also said, Muslims follow the teachings of Christianity, more than some Christians do. Which is a fact, so why for all the nonsense that you put up here?

The real nonsense in this thread is right here what you said above. You haven not shown that you understand anything of value about the teachings of Christianity.

What is the point of the Bible if Christians don't follow everything in it?
It's a simple question, not one which requires sarcasm or for you to say some sections of Christianity do follow or do not follow? How can you be a part of a religion, if you don't even follow fully what is in your own scripture?

Instead of embarrassing yourself some more. Simply pick up the New Testament, and the major writings of the church fathers. Trust me they have been dealing with such questions, hundreds of years before Arab tribes suddenly had the urge to fit in with the rest of the major religions around them. If you think that empty traditions such as dietary laws, or circumcision are an alternative to the Sermon on the Mount you have not even taken the minimum effort to understand Christianity.

 

[Caladan]

Pegg and Shermana. Why don't you take your ******* contest about Jewish-Gentile Christianities to another thread.

 

[Pegg]

What is the point of the Bible if Christians don't follow everything in it?
It's a simple question, not one which requires sarcasm or for you to say some sections of Christianity do follow or do not follow? How can you be a part of a religion, if you don't even follow fully what is in your own scripture? .

many of the laws given to the followers of Jesus superceeded the mosaic laws...thats why we dont follow everything written in the bible. For example, polygamy was permitted under mosaic law, but under christian law it was not permitted.

the bible is not like the quran...it is not one book full of laws and commands for one lot of followers. It is a 'collection' of 66 different pieces of writing by different people written over a 1600 year period. Some of what is written only applies to those for whom it was written for at the time of its writing.

I can understand why you may not understand this, but I would encourage you to take a closer look at each of the books in the collection and see how they apply to whom and when.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg and Shermana. Why don't you take your ******* contest about Jewish-Gentile Christianities to another thread.

i agree, its getting out of control. give me a few minutes to copy the info and ill put it in the one on one section

 

[OneTwo]

The real nonsense in this thread is right here what you said above. You haven not shown that you understand anything of value about the teachings of Christianity.

Look, I picked out a few verses from the Bible and said that Muslims follow these, and yet most Christians don't. Is that not clear to you? Do you not understand what I'm saying?

This thread was not to understand Christianity as a whole, all I said, was: Muslims follow these verses , yet Christians don't. It's an observation, just an observation my friend.

 

[Caladan]

Look, I picked out a few verses from the Bible and said that Muslims follow these, and yet most Christians don't. Is that not clear to you? Do you not understand what I'm saying?

This thread was not to understand Christianity as a whole, all I said, was: Muslims follow these verses , yet Christians don't. It's an observation, just an observation my friend.

Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about nor do I want to make the effort. I copy pasted a few verses and made a ridiculous elitistic and self-righteous claim while taking a cheap shot at Christians for good measure."

WOW. I'm overwhelmed. Good Job.

But at least you believe we are all practicing the same religions. How very enlightened and progressive of you.