Why do Christians side with Jews more than Muslims?

[Epic Beard Man]

@Epic Beard Man
You still won't face the fact that there is an abyssal difference between the atmosphere you can perceive in a synagogue\church (of singing, joy, festivity)

Spoiler: Syn\church

...and the disturbing, heated atmosphere you can perceive in "certain mosques"

Spoiler

Like this one?

Or this?

 

[Shiranui117]

Where in Islamic theology is it foreign?

They don't use any of our same Scriptures, they use none of the same prayers, their versions of all the prophets are different, they allow no music, the only language they allow for theology is Arabic, their entire way of worshipping and praying is completely different. You'd really have to tilt your head funny to spot any similarities between how Muslims pray and worship and how Christians do. Quite simply, we have virtually nothing in common with Islam beyond the names of some people we both hold to be prophets, and the fact that Muslims have some kind of a holy book.

Now, if the Muslims had adopted the Bible as Scripture and used it, but simply added on the Qur'an, that would make them much closer to us; they'd be more like what the Mormons are. But Muslims aren't Arab Mormons from the 600's. They're an entirely different religion starting from a completely different religious foundation (Jesus, His Disciples and the Old and New Testaments vs. Muhammad and the Qur'an).

Now comparing that to Christianity and Judaism, our entire Old Testament is the Jewish Tanakh plus some other books they decided to leave out, we still pray the Psalms, they and we know all the same stories about the prophets and patriarchs and kings as found in the Bible, synagogue services formed the basis for our Liturgy of the Word, and Jewish daily prayers formed the basis of our daily Divine Offices (mini-prayer services prayed at various points throughout the day). In terms of both scriptures and prayers, we have MUCH more in common with Judaism, because they gave us our starting point. Without the Tanakh, there is no New Testament. Without the synagogue, there is no Church.

 

[dianaiad]

[QUOTE="dianaiad, post: 5849829, member: 25717"

I've never heard of Jews persecuting Christians in Israel. At least, there's no beheading going on, or jail terms, or whatever.

Since this is a matter of fact, not opinion, the religious opinions of the person stating them has no bearing on whether the facts are what they are.

At least, that's been my experience.

On the other hand, what do I know? I've only been around for seven decades.

So religion doesn’t matter it’s about how one is treated, got it.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what your point is here, but 'by their fruits ye shall know them' IS a pretty good 'truth' to hang onto.

..........here's another one, that I coined: one cannot blame the belief system for the actions of those who break its rules.

One can only judge a belief system by the actions of those who actually LIVE it.


Most belief systems (including those which have, at their base, the idea that there is no deity) have basic rules/ethics/moral systems. Every one of them can, and have, been twisted to the purposes of evil people. MOST of them, when adhered to by their believers, turn out to be fairly decent.

Mine, however, is the best/right one. (grin) just sayin' to get that out of the way.......not to be obvious about it, of course; if I didn't believe mine was the right/best one, I'd belong to a different system and I'd still think the one I belonged to was the best/right one.

............as do we all, yes?

 

[Augustus]

Never said wrong just asked for a source

Various things I've read over the years. Don't have much desire to spend hours hunting them down.

Most of it is pretty basic and uncontroversial though and is probably on wikipedia, via a few different pages.

As to the difference between negotiated surrender and a city being taken by force, just look at pretty much any campaign of that era. For example, the Arab conquests of the Middle East and beyond or the Mongol conquests didn't happen so fast because they took every town by force after a long siege losing half their men in the process, most were taken without a fight, and those that fought were made an example of. That's why many historical narratives have unrealistically high death tolls because it was primitive psychological warfare.

 

[Augustus]

their entire way of worshipping and praying is completely different. You'd really have to tilt your head funny to spot any similarities between how Muslims pray and worship and how Christians do.

Perhaps today, but probably not 1400 years ago, fwiw.

 

[Shiranui117]

Perhaps today, but probably not 1400 years ago, fwiw.

Even 1400 years ago, Islam was already very different in its style of worship and prayer. Salat bears a resemblance to Christian prayer only insofar as Muslims bow and prostrate and lift up their hands--all universally common prayer positions. Muslim recitation of the Qur'an is similar to Christian readers chanting the Scriptures, but other religions also chant their scriptures, so again, that's only a generality that Islam and Christianity share. There are only general similarities between Byzantine/Coptic/Syriac Liturgies and Islamic worship services. Islam didn't pattern its worship off Christianity the way Christianity patterned its worship off Judaism.

 

[viole]

This is a sincere question

I really do not get the logic to be honest. I've listened to Jewish sermons and upon fielding some of the congregate questions some rabbis jokingly mention Jesus or actually refer to him as "JC" in a joking way. Anecdotally, I've seen Jews mock Christians for their belief (of course I've seen opposite as well), heck even in the very Bible it says in the following:

"When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man’s blood,' he said. 'It is your responsibility!' All the people answered, 'His blood is on us and on our children!' (Greek: Τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν)."

Of course there are modern interpretations to what the above verse means, but the point is observant Jews do not believe in Jesus (as well as the trinity) and in fact according to Jews, Jesus failed several test to be considered a Moshiach. On the other hand Muslims believe in Jesus, believe in his messianic mission, believe that there was an attempt to crucify him and even believe in the various miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims also say "peace be upon him" upon the very mentioning of Jesus' name. Now of course there are linguistic differences between Arab speaking Muslims and Arab Christians upon the name of Jesus, as Christian Arabs refer to Jesus as Yasu and Arabic speaking Muslims refer to Jesus as Isa ibn Maryum but more importantly regardless of the name Muslims are commanded to believe in Jesus.

What perplexes me are the Christians who are so animated in their blind support of Judaism, Israel, and settlements that encroach on the lands of Palestinians because Jews are so-called "God's chosen people," yet they fail to realize from a religious point of view, the very people they support believe they are pagans and polytheists. I mean, if there is no temple Jews are allowed to pray in a mosque and forbidden to pray in a church. Jews have referred to God as Allah, and there are Jews that readily say they have more in common with Muslims than Christians and with that being said out of sincerity to Christian believers why do you continue your theological fight against Muslims yet support Jews?

You can mention history between Judaism and Christianity, but Muslims have no history Biblically and yet Jews at least the religious ones I'm familiar with believe Muslims are very much monotheists as they are and yet Christians in the majority continue to doubt Muslims and very much Islam.

This is something new and puzzling. The protestant tradition is actually virulently anti semitic. What Luther wrote about Jews could have been easily confused by a book written by Heydrich, for instance.

I guess, it is based on the heuristic: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or something like that. But I might be sligthly superficial in this assessment.

Ciao

- viole

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is a sincere question

I really do not get the logic to be honest. I've listened to Jewish sermons and upon fielding some of the congregate questions some rabbis jokingly mention Jesus or actually refer to him as "JC" in a joking way. Anecdotally, I've seen Jews mock Christians for their belief (of course I've seen opposite as well), heck even in the very Bible it says in the following:

"When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man’s blood,' he said. 'It is your responsibility!' All the people answered, 'His blood is on us and on our children!' (Greek: Τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν)."

Of course there are modern interpretations to what the above verse means, but the point is observant Jews do not believe in Jesus (as well as the trinity) and in fact according to Jews, Jesus failed several test to be considered a Moshiach. On the other hand Muslims believe in Jesus, believe in his messianic mission, believe that there was an attempt to crucify him and even believe in the various miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims also say "peace be upon him" upon the very mentioning of Jesus' name. Now of course there are linguistic differences between Arab speaking Muslims and Arab Christians upon the name of Jesus, as Christian Arabs refer to Jesus as Yasu and Arabic speaking Muslims refer to Jesus as Isa ibn Maryum but more importantly regardless of the name Muslims are commanded to believe in Jesus.

What perplexes me are the Christians who are so animated in their blind support of Judaism, Israel, and settlements that encroach on the lands of Palestinians because Jews are so-called "God's chosen people," yet they fail to realize from a religious point of view, the very people they support believe they are pagans and polytheists. I mean, if there is no temple Jews are allowed to pray in a mosque and forbidden to pray in a church. Jews have referred to God as Allah, and there are Jews that readily say they have more in common with Muslims than Christians and with that being said out of sincerity to Christian believers why do you continue your theological fight against Muslims yet support Jews?

You can mention history between Judaism and Christianity, but Muslims have no history Biblically and yet Jews at least the religious ones I'm familiar with believe Muslims are very much monotheists as they are and yet Christians in the majority continue to doubt Muslims and very much Islam.

For me it is simple. Jesus made reference to Moses directly confirming that Moses was from God. ‘For had ye bekueved in Moses yes would also have believed in me’.

But as there is no reference or reference to Muhammad might have been omitted from the Bible, it is not as easy to identify with Muhammad.

Is it not mentioned in the Gospels that there is another Who would appear after Jesus, the Comforter? I think if people used their own minds and not looked through the eyes of the clergy who’s main aim is to maintain their hold over their followers, then they would easily have recognized that the One Jesus meant was Muhammad.

To accept Jews does not result in the losing of members as Christians already accept Moses but to have accepted Muhammad would have meant an end to the reign of the Christian clergy.

So it has always been in the vested interests of the clergy to do what will promote their own interests not the truth. Muhammad was undoubtedly the One Jesus referred to according to 1.6 billion Muslims but somehow the Christian world, following their leaders advice b,Indy have sided against Muhammad without any real shred of evidence. And not realizing that it was clergy, the Jewish High priests who had Jesus crucified.

We have all been given our own mind and eyes to see and think for ourselves not to blindly follow others lest we turn away from the truth. Unfortunately this continues to be the case and Christians side with what they have been led to believe by their clergy.

I was a devout Christian too but once I discounted and set at naught what the clergy had indoctrinated me with it was easy to see that Muhammad, the Bab and now Baha’u’llah are all from God. Only clergy fear the truth but not any open minded person.

Vested interests are often a cause of denial of truth and the persecution of the Prophets of God. Refer to history to verify this.

 

[Milton Platt]

Again, this question I asked is for Christians. I mean, you are religiously ambiguous so I don't think the question applies to you.

Your tag line does not state that the question is for Christians only........just sayin'

 

[Shad]

Is it not mentioned in the Gospels that there is another Who would appear after Jesus, the Comforter? I think if people used their own minds and not looked through the eyes of the clergy who’s main aim is to maintain their hold over their followers, then they would easily have recognized that the One Jesus meant was Muhammad.

Gospel of John. It tells you exact what the Comforter in the next set of verses.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So religion doesn’t matter it’s about how one is treated, got it.

Not sure what your point is here, but 'by their fruits ye shall know them' IS a pretty good 'truth' to hang onto.

..........here's another one, that I coined: one cannot blame the belief system for the actions of those who break its rules.

One can only judge a belief system by the actions of those who actually LIVE it.


Most belief systems (including those which have, at their base, the idea that there is no deity) have basic rules/ethics/moral systems. Every one of them can, and have, been twisted to the purposes of evil people. MOST of them, when adhered to by their believers, turn out to be fairly decent.

Mine, however, is the best/right one. (grin) just sayin' to get that out of the way.......not to be obvious about it, of course; if I didn't believe mine was the right/best one, I'd belong to a different system and I'd still think the one I belonged to was the best/right one.

............as do we all, yes?[/QUOTE]

The point is you don't blindly support a group that thinks your belief is heretical or polytheistic. Christianity professes monotheism. Judaism, at least rabbinical commentary on Christianity states that Christianity is idolatrous. Judaism holds that it has more in common with Islam than Christianity and yes of course people in the middle east that are dealing with geopolitical issues may say otherwise, but when we break down theology, this is what it is. Why would I support a group that thinks I'm theologically wrong considering if I believe I am right? However considering Christian eschatology Christians themselves support Jews for selfish reasons.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Various things I've read over the years. Don't have much desire to spend hours hunting them down.

That's all I needed to know. At least you're honest about anecdotal evidence. One thing college has taught me especially professors whom I admired over the years that if you are stating something fact fact, back it up with a source so someone can fact check.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

For me it is simple. Jesus made reference to Moses directly confirming that Moses was from God. ‘For had ye bekueved in Moses yes would also have believed in me’.

But as there is no reference or reference to Muhammad might have been omitted from the Bible, it is not as easy to identify with Muhammad.

Is it not mentioned in the Gospels that there is another Who would appear after Jesus, the Comforter? I think if people used their own minds and not looked through the eyes of the clergy who’s main aim is to maintain their hold over their followers, then they would easily have recognized that the One Jesus meant was Muhammad.

To accept Jews does not result in the losing of members as Christians already accept Moses but to have accepted Muhammad would have meant an end to the reign of the Christian clergy.

So it has always been in the vested interests of the clergy to do what will promote their own interests not the truth. Muhammad was undoubtedly the One Jesus referred to according to 1.6 billion Muslims but somehow the Christian world, following their leaders advice b,Indy have sided against Muhammad without any real shred of evidence. And not realizing that it was clergy, the Jewish High priests who had Jesus crucified.

We have all been given our own mind and eyes to see and think for ourselves not to blindly follow others lest we turn away from the truth. Unfortunately this continues to be the case and Christians side with what they have been led to believe by their clergy.

I was a devout Christian too but once I discounted and set at naught what the clergy had indoctrinated me with it was easy to see that Muhammad, the Bab and now Baha’u’llah are all from God. Only clergy fear the truth but not any open minded person.

Vested interests are often a cause of denial of truth and the persecution of the Prophets of God. Refer to history to verify this.

Beautifully written

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Your tag line does not state that the question is for Christians only........just sayin'

True but I also stated in my post thereafter.

 

[Estro Felino]

Can I say something politically incorrect?

We Christians don't really care about other religions. We have already innumerable denominations (and "divisions") in our Christendom and we focus on certain aspects of life like love, forgiveness, friendship, sin. Too many topic to worry about something else.

I think your religion, EBM is obsessed with other religions...with what they say or think...and particularly and insanely obsessed with Judaism and Christianity.

And think this thread proves it

 

[Augustus]

That's all I needed to know. At least you're honest about anecdotal evidence. One thing college has taught me especially professors whom I admired over the years that if you are stating something fact fact, back it up with a source so someone can fact check.

Unless you are making a point about much of history being based on anecdotal evidence, then that's not what I'm saying. Also, you didn't take the professor's advice yourself.

Seeing as you hadn't included any sources to back up your claims about Saladin, I didn't go the extra mile to track the sources down. I just made some basic corrections that reflect scholarship and could be easily verified by anyone with a desire to do so.

If someone presents sources that I disagree with, I'll usually do them the courtesy of presenting scholarly sources which I believe are more accurate. If they don't, then it depends on whether or not I can be bothered.

Have you checked to see if what I said was correct (wiki will probably do)? Any points you disagree with?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Unless you are making a point about much of history being based on anecdotal evidence, then that's not what I'm saying. Also, you didn't take the professor's advice yourself.

Seeing as you hadn't included any sources to back up your claims about Saladin, I didn't go the extra mile to track the sources down. I just made some basic corrections that reflect scholarship and could be easily verified by anyone with a desire to do so.

If someone presents sources that I disagree with, I'll usually do them the courtesy of presenting scholarly sources which I believe are more accurate. If they don't, then it depends on whether or not I can be bothered.

Have you checked to see if what I said was correct (wiki will probably do)? Any points you disagree with?

Can you quote which part I stated about Saladin I've that I didn't provide a source?

 

[Augustus]

Is it not mentioned in the Gospels that there is another Who would appear after Jesus, the Comforter? I think if people used their own minds and not looked through the eyes of the clergy who’s main aim is to maintain their hold over their followers, then they would easily have recognized that the One Jesus meant was Muhammad.

People have used their own minds to identify many other figures with the Paraclete too:

Our best evidence suggests that from at least the mid-eighth century CE, if not earlier, Muslim readers of the New Testament singled out Jesus’s discourse on the Paraclete in the Gospel of John as the very annunciation of Muḥammad’s prophetic destiny that Jesus proclaims to the Israelites in Q. 61: 6. For many early Muslims, Muḥammad was indeed this Paraclete prophesied by Jesus.

Muslims were not the first to claim that Jesus’s sermon on the Paraclete was in fact a fatidic pronouncement about the founder of their religious movement. The New Testament Johannine literature, in fact, recognizes two “Paracletes”: the exalted Christ who intercedes with God on the believers’ behalf (1 John 2: 1) and “the other Paraclete”, the Spirit of Truth, whom Jesus promises will ever remain with his followers after Jesus departs from the world (John 14: 16–9).2 Although this “other Paraclete” has been traditionally identified with the Holy Spirit (John 14: 26), the history of Biblical interpretation has seen no lack of attempts to envisage this second Paraclete as an actual successor to Christ embodied by, or even incarnated in, a historical person.

As early as the late second century CE the Montanists saw in the founder of their prophetic movement, Montanus of Phyrgia, a manifestation of Jesus’s promise of the Paraclete,3 even if it is uncertain if Montanus himself claimed to be the Paraclete.4 Manichaeans, too, regarded the rapture of Mani and his union with his Sýzygos (his celestial paircomrade and alter ego) in the third century CE as the moment in which he united with the Paraclete predicted by the Johannine Christ.5 Modern historians are more certain that the Mani himself, and not just his acolytes, claimed that he embodied the Paraclete. (Muḥammad, Menaḥem, and the Paraclete - Sean Anthony)


Some additional issues with the Islamicised Paraclete narrative:

the Gospel of John, Ibn Ishạ̄ q explains to his readers that al-Mnhṃ nā in“Aramaic” (al-siryāniyya)27 and means “Muhạ mmad”. He also notes that in Greek (al-rūmiyya) the word is al-Baraqlītụs (البرقليطس=παράκλητος). While the equivalence of mnhṃ nʾ and paráklētos is relatively straightforward, the identification of these words with Muhạmmad is certainly less so. Unlike mnhṃ nʾin Aramaic and paráklētos in Greek, “Muhạmmad” does not mean “comforter” in Arabic, but rather “praised one”...

Even though the tools of historical philology illuminate considerably not just the provenance of Ibn Ishạ̄q’s Arabic translation of the Johannine Paralcete discourse but also important features of his source-text, we have learned little about the Quranic text that ostensibly inspired this early Arabic translation. Part of the issue is that the connection between the Gospel of John’s Paraclete and Q. 61: 6 is tendentious.“Ahṃad” and “Muhạmmad” on the one hand and paráklētos/mnhṃ nʾ/Menahẹm on the other do not carry even approximately similar meanings. The words are simply incommensurate...

There remains only one other solution, and to my mind it is also the most credible. This is what I would like to call the “minimalist” solution. The minimalist solution essentially rejects the very premise of Ibn Ishạ̄q’s early quest for a Gospel proof-text; it is also a solution favoured by major exegetes of the classical tradition.95 In this reading, “Ahṃad” is not a proper name at all, but rather an adjective: the Arabic phrase ismuhuahṃ ad should not be read as “his name is Ahṃad” but rather “his name is most praised” – reading ahṃad as a straightforward elative.

In other words, this reading severs the putative connection between Jesus’s Quranic proclamation from the Paraclete discourse of the Gospel of John. While decoupling these two texts may defy the unrelenting impulse to embed every verse of the Quran in a biblical subtext, intertext, or source text, such a decisive decoupling of the Q. 61: 6 from the textual cobwebs of biblical proof-texts, in this one instance at least, provides the most convincing reading.

"Muḥammad, Menaḥem, and the Paraclete: New Light on Ibn Isḥāq’s (d. 150/767) Arabic Version of John 15:23-16:1," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 79.2 (2016): 255-278.

 

[Augustus]

Can you quote which part I stated about Saladin I've that I didn't provide a source?

There is a single quote mark at the start, but no source named.

Really? What about the Crusades?

"After a long seige they captured Jerusalem in 1099. The attack was brutal, with thousands killed. A Christian source from the time claimed that The slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles.

The loss of Jerusalem was a terrible blow to the Muslims. Christians took control of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Jewish people, who had hidden in their synagogues, were also killed by the Crusaders. The Crusaders now established a kingdom around Jerusalem."

When Saladin took Jerusalem back what did he do? He allowed anyone wanting to leave safely. you see the Caliphs in various times all had different agendas based on the geopolitical position. People think the issue concerning the advancement of Islam was purely religious and in fact several accounts historically have shown Muslims have had a lot of in-fighting themselves and different Muslim armies were fighting each other.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

There is a single quote mark at the start, but no source named.

The Crusaders Capture Jerusalem, 1099

and just to fact check the first here:

http://www.historynet.com/first-crusade-siege-of-jerusalem.

and a third just in case

Traditionally they've been painted as a noble mission. Now, two new books tell the gruesome reality of the very unholy crusades | Daily Mail Online