Islamic And Christian Religion What Is The Difference

The Protestants of the sixteenth century objected to the additional books because of the doctrinal teachings of these books. The Second Book of Machabees, for example, contains the doctrine of purgatory, of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (12:39-46). The book of Tobias teaches the importance in the eyes of God of good works. The Protestants could not reject some without excluding all of the additional books. Hence, in drawing up their list of Old Testament books they went back to the first collection of Biblical books of the Palestinian Jews. They removed the additional books, which had been in the Bible up till 1517 and placed them at the end of the Bible in a special appendix. In addition, they labelled them as "apocryphal" (spurious, uninspired), a designation which helped to lower them in the estimation of Protestant readers.

The Lutheran and Anglican Bibles still carry these books in the appendix or give them at least a secondary place. But the other Protestant churches reject them entirely. In 1827 the British and Foreign Bible Society decided not to print or handle Bibles that contained the additional books and not to aid financially companies that published Bibles containing them. As a result these books have practically disappeared from Protestant Bibles.

The Catholic Church has always considered these books as inspired and of the same rank as the other Old Testament books. Her attitude is based upon the following facts:

1) The Apostles and New Testament writers quoted principally the Septuagint. In fact, of the three hundred and fifty Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament, about three hundred are taken from the Septuagint.

2) Some of the New Testament writers made use of the additional books themselves, particularly of the Book of Wisdom, which seems to have been St. Paul's favorite volume. The Epistle of St. James - to take another example - shows an acquaintance with the Book of Ecclesiasticus. If the Apostles and New Testament writers used some of the additional books, did they not thereby approve the entire Septuagint collection?

3) The additional books were accepted in the Church from the beginning. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written before the end of the first century, makes use of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, gives an analysis of the book of Judith, and quotes from the additional sections of the book of Esther. The same is true of other early Christian writers.

4) The oldest Christian Bibles in existence (Codex Vaticanus, etc.) contain the additional books intermingled with the rest, just as we find them in the Catholic Bibles today.

5) The oldest Christian lists of Biblical books contain the additional books. In 382 Pope Damasus in a Roman Council issued a formal list of Old and New Testament books and the list contains the same books as we have in our Bibles.

6) Finally, Christian art of the first four centuries - especially that found in the catacombs and cemeteries - furnishes among others the following illustrations from the additional books: Tobias with the fish (Tobias 6), Susanna (Daniel 13), Daniel and the dragon (Daniel 14), the angel with the three children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:49), Habacuc and Daniel in the lion's den (Daniel 14:35).

The New Testament

The Protestant New Testament contains the same books as the Catholic New Testament. Although Luther showed great hostility to St. James's Epistle because of its doctrine of the necessity of good works and contemptuously called it an "epistle of straw," he clearly saw that he had no more reason for excluding that book than he had for rejecting the other books of the New Testament. The differences between the Protestant and Catholic New Testament arise from changes in specific passages in various books of the New Testament.

In the passage from I Corinthians 11:27, "Whosoever shall eat this bread OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord," the Authorized Version (AV) of King James replaced "or" by "and." Inspired by doctrinal and anti-Catholic bias, the editors purposely changed the text in order to remove the argument for communion under one kind. Today all Scriptural scholars agree that "OR drink the chalice" is the correct reading. Modern critical Protestant editions of the Bible - the Revised Version and the Standard Version - have rejected the reading of the Authorized Version and restored the old or Rheims-Douay reading.

A further deliberate change in the interest of the Protestant doctrine on original sin is introduced into several passages. The Reformers, as we know, maintained that human nature was essentially corrupted by the Fall. Man's intellect is positively darkened and his free will destroyed.

In I Corinthians 7:9 where the Rheims-Douay Version reads: "If they do not contain themselves, let them marry"; the Authorized Version changed the passage to read: "But if they cannot contain, let them marry." The same Authorized Version changes "do not" to "cannot do" in Galatians 5:17: "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary to one another, so that you do not the things that you would." The aim of the editors in both instances was to introduce into the Scriptures the false Lutheran doctrine concerning the total depravity of human nature because of original sin. St. Paul is made to affirm that a Christian cannot lead a stainless virtuous life. The critical editions of the bible, however - the Revised and Standard Versions-refused to adopt this reading and returned to the reading of the Rheims-Douay.

To the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13, the Authorized Version adds the doxology or the long ending: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." The Revised Version, however, as well as all critical editions, omit this doxology - and correctly so. The doxology is not a part of the Lord's Prayer. It is not found in St. Luke's version of the Our Father.

In St. Matthew's Gospel, the intimate connection between verses 13 and 14 shows that the original text had no clause between the two verses. The long ending is not found in two of the oldest extant Bibles - namely, the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus. In the course of time, however, the doxology began to appear on the margin or was written in the text with red ink, until finally in some later manuscripts it becomes a part of the Bible. According to the almost unanimous opinion of scholars the doxology is an interpolation which worked its way into some Bibles from the early Christian liturgy.

The King James Version (AV) also adopted the Protestant form of the Gloria in excelsis Deo in Luke 2:14. Before considering the intrinsic merits of this reading, let us compare it with the reading in the Revised Version (RV) and Standard Version (SV) and in the Rheims-Douay Version (RD):

AV - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men."

RV and SV - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom He is well pleased."

RD - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will."

These quotations show that the reading of the Revised and Standard Versions and that of the Catholic Bible are substantially the same. Hence we need consider only the AV reading and the RD reading. The Protestant version of the Angelic hymn consists of three clauses, the Catholic version of two clauses. The Catholic version is better attested because it is found in the oldest and best extant Bibles. Internal reasons likewise favor the RD reading. In the Protestant version we should expect ant "and" before the third clause. The RD version gives us two parallel clauses, each containing three ideas parallel to the other:

In the highest . . . glory . . . to God.

On earth. . . peace . . . to men of good will.

Opinions are divergent as to the interpretation of the phrase, "men of good will." Does "good will" signify a disposition or quality of the soul? If it does, the angel announces his tidings of peace to the well-disposed among men. This view is open to two objections: first, nowhere in the New Testament is the Greek original of "good will" used to signify the state of men's will in relation to God; second, this interpretation robs the message of its grand, comprehensive mercy. Christ died for all men and sent a message of peace to all men. God by the giving of His Son has shown His mercy to the whole world. The good will of God as it proceeds from God is universal, for He wishes all men to be saved. In every sense, therefore, the message of peace was to all men. Men are called "men of goodwill" in the sense that they are. men enjoying the benevolence of God, the objects of God's redeeming will, or of His will - to save them all.

Ok chrisd, so what does Mark 19:27 say in your un-corrupted Bible?

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, `Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, it has no works is dead.

John chapter 21: 24-25 24     24   This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25     And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


This is a proved that people wrote the books and they could not write all that happen due to the limitation of human brain which is now manipulating Christianity or islam.
We are here for a purpose. Fullfill your calls men. Let love

Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam is a religion of war. please do not compare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i do not hate  muslims i just think they are too violent. they need to cool off.

There are loads of differences between the two religions where does one start from?

At the basic level, a careful consideration of the beliefs of both religion shows that while Christianity confesses Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Islam categorically denies this, even though it purports to have acknowledged the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Then again, Islam does not know or confess God as "Father" - as that, to them, is like blasphemy that supposes God has a wife.

Islam is made to look like Christianity at its earlier history but they have never even been close. I'm surprised today that while some Muslims are taking the effort to examine the claims of Christianity, picking and choosing whatever they please, a few of them would want to say that they ae more "Christian" than Christians themselves!

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ confessed as the Son of God, is the fundamental feature that sets Christianity apart from Islam.

There are lots of didferences.

@nyabinghi,


We can be thankful for describing us as "half-educated christian zealots". It is rather a pity that the Qur'an actually recognizes Christians as very well educated and devoted to learning (Qur'an 5:82).

Secondly, if you already know what the Bible says, why are you struggling against the freedom it offers? Indeed, the Bible says 'you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free' - but what is holding you back from the ultimate truth: Jesus Christ Himself?

Jesus' subjected Himself to the divine service that the Father gave Him to do when He stated that the Father was greater than Him (John 14:28 - the reference is not John 5:30).

However, in His true essence, Jesus made a bold declaration: "I and My Father are One" (John 10:30). You can't improve on Jesus' statement, can you?

Slavery. . . hmm. It is remarkable to observe that Jesus had no slaves; but many Islamic sources clearly declare that Muhammad himself had slaves. When it comes down to WHO really Jesus and Muhammad were, you cannot blame slavery on Jesus - for He set people free. But Muhammad: is it not true that he made slaves of people for himself?