Islam and Christianity

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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:

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]

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!!!

 

[Jaymes]

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.

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.

It might have something to do with being called "Mohammedians" and being accused of being anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, and following a faith that was founded because Catholicism was corrupted.

Maybe. Just maybe.

 

[jamaesi]

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.

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.

I'm glad to know, as a Muslim, I basically wasted my time with trying to answer your questions because what I said just doesn't matter when you can just stereotype...

 

[Booko]

Anastasios, I see a few problems here that I would like to comment on.

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.

Why would you think there is no Law in the Gospels? I see laws there. They are not listed as they are in the Torah in a single place, no. But then, the laws are not listed in one place in the Qu'ran either.

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.

Which Arabic word for "prophet" does the Qu'ran use to describe Jesus?

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).

Actually it was established as a "religion" much earlier than that. Read the book of Acts. There is the nascent Church right there.

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.

The Church existed before Trinitarian doctrine was established at that Council, Anastasios. If there was no Church before, then what happened? Did Church leaders magically spring into being at a Council to discuss theological matters, where before there were NO leaders? This is very unhistorical.

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.

Jesus was born a Jew, and arguably was the first Christian. Just as Muhammad (pbuh) would be the first Muslim (and Kadijah the second).

2- The Gospels, New Testament and Bible trilogy. And authenticity of especially New Testament.

You know, I always hear Muslims talk about the authenticity of the New Testament, but I have never ever heard one discuss manuscript histories. Why is that?

Do you really expect Christians to believe their fellows, who love their Gospel as much as they do, would destroy the very thing they love?

This is as absurd as saying the most devoted of the Companions would dare to tinker with one ayat in the Qu'ran.

3- The Development of Christianity as a Religion and church issues.

There was some development in Islam as well, right from the moment of Muhammad's passing. Was Muhammad's son-in-law the First Imam or the Fourth Caliph? You had your growing pains too. It doesn't mean Islam wasn't created until centuries later.

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.

Christians disregard some practices in the OT because Christ said He came to "fulfill" the Law, and Christians understand that means they look to Christ first and the OT second. Since Christ specifically abrogated some of the OT law, I'm confused how He would just be calling people back to the OT law.

Muslims may disagree with Trinitarian ideas about Christ's nature, and I understand that. But it doesn't follow that the rest of Christian theology is so off base.

 

[Booko]

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.

Well, it happens often enough. Personally I think it's a poor tactic, but then I'm an infidel anyway.

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.

It's a sword that cuts both ways, Scott. From a Muslims pov, Christians rarely say anything about their faith without implying their Prophet is a false prophet or they all support blowing up women and children. So it goes.

And then there's a chicken like me stupid enough to stick her beak in the middle of it all. I must be certifiable. :areyoucra

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.

Even if there were large changes, it doesn't matter. As you say, there were bishops long before 380 C.E. Goodness, they're even mentioned in the NT. It's a strange sort of revisionist history, and one I've not encountered before.

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.

You can put them out anyway. I might find them educational.

 

[Scott1]

Well, it happens often enough. Personally I think it's a poor tactic, but then I'm an infidel anyway.

Sheep go to heaven... goats go to hell.... what about chickens?

It's a sword that cuts both ways, Scott. From a Muslims pov, Christians rarely say anything about their faith without implying their Prophet is a false prophet or they all support blowing up women and children. So it goes.

I guess so... just that I could spend the rest of my life chatting with Muslims about Jesus Christ and the Christian faith and never ONCE bring up Islam.... but you're right, many people need to bash others to support their views.

You can put them out anyway. I might find them educational.

Cool.... just that there are THOUSANDS of documents from the pre-Nicea period... a few good sites:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/

http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/

Peace,
Scott

 

[gnostic]

And then there's a chicken like me stupid enough to stick her beak in the middle of it all. I must be certifiable.

By all mean, jump in the cauldron of boiling water. I think you would make a delicious chicken soup. However I would prefer my bowl to be without any feather.

 

[gnostic]

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).

That's a pretty ignorant comment, Anastasios.

You are only referring to a church with government backing, in this case, of Rome. The Christian religion were well established long before then. Christianity was more than just a church, ie. a building.

Didn't Islam exist before the 1st mosque was ever built, Anastasios? Did Islam not exist before the caliph or sultan?

In the beginning, Islam was not a recognised religion beyond that of Muhammad and his few immediate followers.

 

[Anastasios]

Why would you think there is no Law in the Gospels? I see laws there. They are not listed as they are in the Torah in a single place, no. But then, the laws are not listed in one place in the Qu'ran either.

I see laws too, but they are not free from Main Law. And the others are mostly teachings of Jesus about divinity and some good advices for the life after death.

Which Arabic word for "prophet" does the Qu'ran use to describe Jesus?

He is described as prophet in Quran. But we believe, he is not Law bringer Prophet, but he is a reformer Prophet.

Actually it was established as a "religion" much earlier than that. Read the book of Acts. There is the nascent Church right there.

In fact, if take preparation and refugee period of christianity, I mean if you mean the intentions of apostles, and hidden lives of early christians in the caves, yes there was a christianity. You know earliest christians are supposed to have used those dead sea scrolls. There are also differences between Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian, that si i guess also important.

The Church existed before Trinitarian doctrine was established at that Council, Anastasios. If there was no Church before, then what happened? Did Church leaders magically spring into being at a Council to discuss theological matters, where before there were NO leaders? This is very unhistorical.

Of course it was. did I say something about it

Jesus was born a Jew, and arguably was the first Christian. Just as Muhammad (pbuh) would be the first Muslim (and Kadijah the second).

No, I don't agree with you on that. "Christianity" was established in a wide religious context through his followers. Literally "Christianity" is the religion of those who follow the Christ. In islam, muhammad (pbuh) can be the first muslim. but not first "muhammedan", a term we actually never use. It could be more satisfactory for me if there woudl be some sentences from Jesus (pbuh) saying his intention of establishing a new religion, like Muhammad (pbuh).

You know, I always hear Muslims talk about the authenticity of the New Testament, but I have never ever heard one discuss manuscript histories. Why is that?

In fact it is everywhere. Maybe you don't listen to those other than muslims about it. In fact these discoveries are done by western part of this world. For example i have no book from east that tells about these problems. even, I can tell eastern people will never know about those issues as muc as western people. I am sure you will see them, if you search information carefully, just a sample: http://www.amazon.com/Whose-Word-Ba...3255618?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186295804&sr=8-4

Do you really expect Christians to believe their fellows, who love their Gospel as much as they do, would destroy the very thing they love?This is as absurd as saying the most devoted of the Companions would dare to tinker with one ayat in the Qu'ran.

I don't expect this from Christians of course, but some people who are in authority can certainly do it, if it will bring people together as they wish. Or they can use in direction of their aims. That is quite normal. The interesting is that the priginal Greek text was translated in to Latin in Europe, but never translated into its other languages until certain point in the history. but I don't really say they changed the bible in this time. The earliest Greek bibles Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD) are securely in our hands, and it is quite clear from those codices that texts were altered. The famoust story of woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:12 is a later addition and also it there are some peculiarities in this story. Another sample, the last twelve verses of Mark, which is earliest Gospel and a copy source for others narrate the incidents after Jesus's burial, but thoses are completley later addition. I could see original Greek editions of New Testament and those sections are typed in brackets, since they are not original. Those researches are not done by us.

There was some development in Islam as well, right from the moment of Muhammad's passing. Was Muhammad's son-in-law the First Imam or the Fourth Caliph? You had your growing pains too. It doesn't mean Islam wasn't created until centuries later.

When Muhammad (pbuh) passed away, the consturction of religion and state was completed. He left a quite robust, certain, determined religion and state. There maybe some problems in the khilafat after him but Islam as a religion and as its socially acceptance was already done while Muhammad (pbuh) lived. This is not the same with Christianity.

Christians disregard some practices in the OT because Christ said He came to "fulfill" the Law, and Christians understand that means they look to Christ first and the OT second. Since Christ specifically abrogated some of the OT law, I'm confused how He would just be calling people back to the OT law.

Well, it is better to listen to Jesus about this:

John 5.17-19: 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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
​

But we see in Hebrews 7.12:

For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
​

In Luke 16.17, Jesus (pbuh) says:

It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
​

But in Hebrews again (8.13) we read:

By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
​

James writes in 2.10:

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
​

but in Galatians 3.24-25:

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
​

Again in James, 1.25:

But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.
​

But again in Galatians, 2.16:

know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
​

Again in James 2.17-26:

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless. Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
​

But again in Hebrews 10:

1- The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2- If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. ... 38 - But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him.
​

Since Pauls seems to be changing the phase of Christianity.

Muslims may disagree with Trinitarian ideas about Christ's nature, and I understand that. But it doesn't follow that the rest of Christian theology is so off base.

Yes, in fact there are good points in christian theology either. for us the main main problem is the changing nature of Jesus and that christianity is based on salvation through Jesus and his crucifixion. If they could keep him as a human prophet, like we do for Muhammad, christianity would be more meaningful to us.

 

[Anastasios]

That's a pretty ignorant comment, Anastasios. You are only referring to a church with government backing, in this case, of Rome. The Christian religion were well established long before then. Christianity was more than just a church, ie. a building.

I don't think I have rally said something different, but maybe I seem to have forgetten to say what i meant is christianity of modern ages. Of course christianity and christians didn't show up out of blue.

Didn't Islam exist before the 1st mosque was ever built, Anastasios? Did Islam not exist before the caliph or sultan?

Think once more about the question if you really ask this.

In the beginning, Islam was not a recognised religion beyond that of Muhammad and his few immediate followers.

what i say about Islam and Muhammad is that he established the construction, determined the regulations, those all have been done through quranic revelations. He fulfilled everything before he died. Please see my previous post

regards

 

[Scott1]

Well, it is better to listen to Jesus about this

I love it when Muslims think they know more about the Christian Bible than Christians do.... does the same work for your "noble" Koran? Can I just pick it up and interpret it any way I choose as long as it fits my theology?

No?

Didn't think so.