rexben:
Hmmm. Pls do check my new post,SCRIPTURES ARE SIGNPOSTS. You will get to know why. Thanks

Here is another personal opinion sans a shred of scriptural evidence!

na wa o...some ppl just open their mouth and satan filled it...Was Paul a commissioner? Paul commissioned nothing. The name Christian was used by the citizens of Antioch to labelled the believers in Christ...Christ told Cephas that upom this rock will i build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it...Read the Bible without your blindfold of prejudice!

[/color][quote author=AmunRaOlodumare post=44428491]I suggest people to read books about the early history of Christianity (up to Constantine at least).

I read a couple of books but this one is pretty good:
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch

https://www.amazon.ca/Christianity-First-Three-Thousand-Years/dp/0143118692

I'm not a christian or follower of any Abrahamic religions but I'm interested in History (especially of Africa but the world too).

I don't think it's fair to say Jesus didn't create Christianity because Paul (who probably never met him or heard him preaching) was very important in the history of Christianity. It's evident that what Jesus was preaching to the Jews wasn't exactly the form of Christianity there's is today in its various forms and denominations. All religions change with time. Even Christianity today is not a single block. There's catholic, protestant, orthodox, ethiopian, independant churches, gnostic, mormons, etc. Saying Jesus didn't create what would become Christianity because it's different now than it was before is not fair imo.

Jesus was a Jewish itinerant preachers like there was many of them at that time among Jewish people. Preaching different views and branches of Judaism at that time (Sadducee, Pharisees, Essene, itinerant preachers, etc). There's John the baptist, the teacher of Jesus but there was also many other ones. Itinerant preaching was part of the culture of the Jewish people at that time. Like Christianity and Islam today, Judaism also had different branches. There was no normative Judaism. All the early disciples of Jesus were Jews. Even Paul later on first started preaching in Synagogues among converted gentiles speaking Koine Greek (Jesus was speaking Aramaic not Koine Greek like Paul). Beside John the Baptist mentioned in the bible, there's other itinerant preachers like Jesus mentioned in the Bible like Elijah and Jeremiah.

In general, in Jewish history, there was a lot of messiah claimants (messiah announced in the Jewish tradition):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants Some more popular like Simon of Peraea and Jesus, some less popular. John the Baptist was the teacher of Jesus.

Jesus was also a revolutionary. While still preaching the religion of his ancestor (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, fidelity to the law of Moses, torah, etc) to fellow Jewish people, he was opposed the the Sadducee temple leaders/priests/jewish elite, who were also roman collaborators. Israel was under Roman occupation at the time of Jesus.[color=#006600]

Lov ur instinct in d way u analyse but dere is no evidence both in the bible n d book of history dat Jesus bring or preaches Christianity. pls tak no offence i like to use quote frm bible verse to illustrate so dat we can understand it better.

JESUS SAID
Mathew 5:17-19
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19. "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Which means d previous laws ar 2 b fulfilled n wat ar ds laws
ALL D LAWS OF MOSES WHICH D FIRST IS
Exodus 20:2
2."I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3"You shall have no other gods before Me. 4."You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth 5."You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,

Deuteronomy 5:7-9
7. 'You shall have no other gods before Me. 8. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 9. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God

Jesus Also said when som1 was asking him
Mark 12:28
28. One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" 29. Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30. AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH

wat ar d remaining Laws
Do not eat Pork
Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:8 nd Isaiah 65:4
Deut 14:8
8. "The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses
Leviticus 11:7-8
7. and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. 8. 'You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you
nd Isaiah 65:4
Who sit among graves and spend the night in secret places; Who eat swine's flesh, And the broth of unclean meat is in their pots

Abstaining from Alcohol
Proverb 20:1
1. Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.
Ephesians 5:18
18. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit

Dressing Modestly
Deut 22:5
5"A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
1 Timothy 2:9
9. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly E.g MARY

ND nowhere does d bible said Jesus claim divinity bt wat He was preaching was
My Father is greater than i John 14:28
My Father is greater than all John 10:29
I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. John 5:30
40"But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. John 8:40
and Finally
16And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" 17. And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.. Mathew 19:16
22. Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know Act 2:22

d Message of Jesus was clear and as u said the message was mis-interpreted nd Paul change everything He said Do not follow d commandment which not church will nt say do not eat pork, al female should dress modestly by covering dere head which Mary n Nun sisters are emulating 2day.

Scholar8200:
Then why would Allah refer you to a book that wont be there at present? And since that passage referred to Book and not Bible why then did you quote it in application to the Bible?

Since all prophets and messangers came from same One God, Allah, Quran is referring to a Book (revelation), not "book of revelation" given to Jesus son of Mary. It is called Injeel. And those who follow Jesus claimed they have the book as well as you claimed too. You claimed you believe in the same Jesus(p). After doing our research, we found out that what you called the Bible attributed to Jesus is actually about him because you have many writers, known and unknown. Since that's all you have, we can only deduce from it what is in harmony with Islam. We believe 100% that Jesus brought nothing but one message that other prophets and messangers before him brought and it is the same message Muhammad(p) brought which Lailaha ilaAllah i:e There is no deities other than Allah. But the Bible says something else even though it contain of shahada as well. Christian also believe differently from the bible. This become major theological differences

That's NOT concealment! Is the whole OT not in their Bibles? Besides, Jesus ministered in the NT hence I wonder your claim that they concealed His words.

I should ask you why you also have OT?. When i said you concealed his words, let me give you example of that. Is Jesus God? You would say 'yes'. If I ask you how, you would give me bunch of mixed up verses that Jesus did not utter to proof your point. But if I ask rexben if Jesus is God?, he would say no because according to him, Jesus did not make such claim which is very correct and in harmony with Islam. So if both of you claim to read the same Book, why do you have major differences in theology?.

If I ask you is Jesus son of God?. You would say 'yes'. If I ask you how, you would come up with complicated notion which Jesus never approved of. Which means you conceal his true message.

And who are these 'true, non-trinitarian christian' people the Quran commends? Sabellanists? Or Gnostics? Or Arians?etc these are sects that fit your description. Besides it means Allah was fiercely against the Vaudois and other custodians who preserved every word of the Syrian Bible handed down to them with their very lives. Why? The Bible they so preserved clearly agrees with the Trinity!
But Allah commends the people who history clearly reveals tampered with the Word!
would you mind quoting that passage here?

We are not neccessarily concerned about non-trinitarian becuase they themselves believe in gravious sin like Jesus is son of God. We are only concerned about those who were with Jesus and believed in him and his true message. Quran says:


"And when Jesus sensed their faithlessness, he said, ‘Who will be my helpers towards Allah?’ The Disciples said, ‘We will be helpers of Allah. We have faith in Allah, and bear witness that we are muslims.'’ S. 3:52

"And when I inspired the Disciples, [saying], ‘Have faith in Me and My apostle,’ they said, ‘We have faith. Bear witness that we are muslims.'' S. 5:111

Underlined, what that Bible version they so preserved . And no Allah did not commend those who tampered with scripture. That's opinion.

rexben:
,i wish you read to understand and not read to ask questions. Pls change,its for your own good. I wish you understood my last quote on your comments.
You have failed to understand that i am not a Christian. There are people that have close views or believes to christians and aren't christians(Anabaptists etc).
Lol. We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the day of resurrection. What a good religion to follow. A selfish one for that matter.
I have nothing to do with either Christians and Muslims. Christianity,Islam,Buddhism,Judaism,etc are all in the same boat called religion. Each claims that theirs is the only true religion.Each fight,kills to defend its beliefs. All i do is to teach people to obey the commands of Jesus which can be found in Matthew,Mark,Luke and John and not to follow religion because it is evil. Matthew 28:20.

You may never understand

rexben:
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Matt 20:28.
Paul brought the concept of sacrifice. Jesus never said He was a sacrificial lamb. All He said relating to sheep is that He is the good shepherd. He laid His life for His sheep as a ransom and not as a sacrifice.
Ransom,is a payment made to release the hostages or captives from the captor.
His sheep are the hostages and the devil is the captor. So,if you are not of Jesus you are automatically of the devil. Either of your Father, God or of your father,the devil.
He laid down His life as a ransom for His sheep to be free from the devil.
Sacrifice is made to a deity to appease it. So how will God delight in the blood of His son to be appeased,it sounds absurd. The sheep are under bondage of the devil not under the bondage of God,so how will you now appease God when devil is the one holding hostage.
Some might say,God is created the devil. That i know very well. But should He be appease before He should do what He needs to do? Or you will say God is angry with man? Have you forgotten John 3:16.
God cannot force man out of devil's custody. Man was created with the ability to make choices(the mind).
Jesus came to the earth to show man an escape route which is to believe in Jesus and God. To also be the disciple of Jesus by continuing in His word as recorded in Matthew,Mark,Luke and John only . So,man chooses to stay in the custody or leave. It is a matter of choice.

Thank you for this detailed explanation.

Still in learning mode, when Jesus said in matt 26:28 "this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins", what did he mean? Especially as he also had said earlier that "..and to give his life as a ransom for many". (Matt 21:28)

Funny both verses occur in the 28th verses. Do they mean the same thing or different things?

These are honest questions.

hydeehip:
Message of Jesus was clear and as u said the message was mis-interpreted nd Paul change everything He said Do not follow d commandment which not church will nt say do not eat pork, al female should dress modestly by covering dere head which Mary n Nun sisters are emulating 2day.

Everything you say is ok. I even mentioned earlier Matthew 15:24 where Jesus basically says that he came only for Jewish people. You have the right to your own interpretations of what Jesus said and what Christianity means to you.

Everything we know about Jesus comes from what humans, early and later Christians, wrote about him. So you and I can't claim to know historical Jesus more than any of the past people. Even them, those who wrote things in the bible and other early christian works (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, James, Gospel of Mark, Paul, etc), didn't have full knowledge of the historical Jesus.

People who wrote in the Bible and other early Christians works, wrote what was important to them and their christian communities at the time of their writings. What they wrote was influenced by what they knew about Jesus and their current social situation. After the disappearance and end of influence of the first christian church called the Jerusalem Church. Different branches of Christianity started to develop away from the Jerusalem Church and its Jewish roots. For example, IIRC Mark's gospel seems closer to its Jewish roots while John the least closer iirc. It's influenced by the political situation of their christian communities when "Mark" and "John" wrote their gospels. John's christian community at the time must have faced harsh criticism and opposition from Jewish people in the roman empire practicing Judaism. Paul on the other hand was more concerned in making Christianity as something acceptable to the Romans authority (respecting the law, a slave must obey its master, etc). At the time, Romans view Christians just as another Jewish sect. Every writers in the Bible and other early christian works were influenced by the current situation of their community.

After the fall of the Jerusalem Church (which was led by the brother of Jesus, James). The first Christian Church. There was many different branches of Christianity. Different communities. Maybe the Ethiopian Church or the Protestants or the Catholics (with a large influence of paul) or the Gnostics have a message closer to Jesus's message or not. Clearly Jesus didn't write directly anything in the Bible. It doesn't really manner. What is important is what Christianity has become and what it means to you. Personally, since I'm not a christian or followers of any Abrahamic religions I see Christianity as a very influential religions (especially because of the Roman empire in Europe, and later, European colonialism) among many other equally interesting religions in the world (Buddhism, African religions, Chinese and Native Americans religions, Shinto, Islam, different branches of Christianity, Druidism, new religions, etc, etc). I guess I'm a bit more interested in African religions because I'm African.

In term of history, it seems the 4 Gospels chosen by the Roman Church (and other gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc), beside the influence of the christian community the writers were part of, were also influenced by a collection of Jesus saying called Q source. This Q source must have been similar to the Gospel of Thomas in its form. That is a collection of Jesus sayings. The Q source doesn't exist anymore.

Since Jesus didn't himself leave any writings or recorded messages, what is Christianity (a word Jesus didn't know), is what early Christians writers in the past and what Christians today make out of it.

Empiree:
Since all prophets and messangers came from same One God, Allah, Quran is referring to a Book (revelation), not "book of revelation" given to Jesus son of Mary. It is called Injeel. And those who follow Jesus claimed they have the book as well as you claimed too. You claimed you believe in the same Jesus(p). After doing our research, we found out that what you called the Bible attributed to Jesus is actually about him because you have many writers, known and unknown. Since that's all you have, we can only deduce from it what is in harmony with Islam. We believe 100% that Jesus brought nothing but one message that other prophets and messangers before him brought and it is the same message Muhammad(p) brought which Lailaha ilaAllah i:e There is no deities other than Allah. But the Bible says something else even though it contain of shahada as well. Christian also believe differently from the bible. This become major theological differences


I should ask you why you also have OT?. When i said you concealed his words, let me give you example of that. Is Jesus God? You would say 'yes'. If I ask you how, you would give me bunch of mixed up verses that Jesus did not utter to proof your point. But if I ask rexben if Jesus is God?, he would say no because according to him, Jesus did not make such claim which is very correct and in harmony with Islam. So if both of you claim to read the same Book, why do you have major differences in theology?.

If I ask you is Jesus son of God?. You would say 'yes'. If I ask you how, you would come up with complicated notion which Jesus never approved of. Which means you conceal his true message.



[size=14pt]We are not neccessarily concerned about non-trinitarian becuase they themselves believe in gravious sin like Jesus is son of God. We are only concerned about those who were with Jesus and believed in him and his true message.[/size] Quran says:


"And when Jesus sensed their faithlessness, he said, ‘Who will be my helpers towards Allah?’ The Disciples said, ‘We will be helpers of Allah. We have faith in Allah, and bear witness that we are muslims.'’ S. 3:52

"And when I inspired the Disciples, [saying], ‘Have faith in Me and My apostle,’ they said, ‘We have faith. Bear witness that we are muslims.'' S. 5:111

Underlined, what that Bible version they so preserved . And no Allah did not commend those who tampered with scripture. That's opinion.

Now as regards the highlighted, who were those people? Can you give names or historical reference?

Besides, since you said this:

Therefore, it makes perfect sense for Quran to commend them for holding up the truth. Hence, they are candidates of heaven. They weren't Christians of trinity as prevalent today etc.

Were those people commended by Allah even if they believed Jesus was the Son of God but did not believe in the Trinity? If no, can you give me a proof, name etc of people who saw Jesus as no more than a prophet (thus denying His Deity/Sonship) between the period 33AD-500AD who Allah was commending as candidates of Heaven?

Scholar8200:
Now as regards the highlighted, who were those people? Can you give names or historical reference?

I dont think you get it yet. There is nothing like "non-trinitarian". It is a terminology used by later christians. It is your homework to find wh they are. They are actually on NL and they disagree with you. By 'non trinitarian' we mean those christians wh dont believe in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They exist here on NL. As for historical reference, Quran simply recognizes believers amongst Jesus disciples. Those who reject him are simply disbelievers. It's Christians denominations that categorized those terms

And I think i skipped where you asked me to quote ayah of Quran in reference to "clarification". That's your homework because you brought it up. Quote it then we take it from there.

Besides, since you said this:
Were those people commended by Allah even if they believed Jesus was the Son of God but did not believe in the Trinity? If no, can you give me a proof, name etc of people who saw Jesus as no more than a prophet (thus denying His Deity/Sonship) between the period 33AD-500AD who Allah was commending as candidates of Heaven?

where did i make statement @underlined?. Those who say Jesus is God or son of God or believe in trinity are all condemned by Quran. They commit major sins and there are textual references for them. And these sins are not like committing fornication or adultery (that are forgivable). These are sins that are NOT and cannot be forgiven.

I quoted two verses earlier that Quran recognizes some disciples as Muslims I dont know their names. But if Paul, Peter etc are considered disciples but yet believed in Divinity and Sonship of Jesus, then, they arent believers. They must be those who rejected faith.

[color=#006600][/color]

AmunRaOlodumare:


Everything you say is ok. I even mentioned earlier Matthew 15:24 where Jesus basically says that he came only for Jewish people. You have the right to your own interpretations of what Jesus said and what Christianity means to you.

Everything we know about Jesus comes from what humans, early and later Christians, wrote about him. So you and I can't claim to know historical Jesus more than any of the past people. Even them, those who wrote things in the bible and other early christian works (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, James, Gospel of Mark, Paul, etc), didn't have full knowledge of the historical Jesus.

People who wrote in the Bible and other early Christians works, wrote what was important to them and their christian communities at the time of their writings. What they wrote was influenced by what they knew about Jesus and their current social situation. After the disappearance and end of influence of the first christian church called the Jerusalem Church. Different branches of Christianity started to develop away from the Jerusalem Church and its Jewish roots. For example, IIRC Mark's gospel seems closer to its Jewish roots while John the least closer iirc. It's influenced by the political situation of their christian communities when "Mark" and "John" wrote their gospels. John's christian community at the time must have faced harsh criticism and opposition from Jewish people in the roman empire practicing Judaism. Paul on the other hand was more concerned in making Christianity as something acceptable to the Romans authority (respecting the law, a slave must obey its master, etc). At the time, Romans view Christians just as another Jewish sect. Every writers in the Bible and other early christian works were influenced by the current situation of their community.

After the fall of the Jerusalem Church (which was led by the brother of Jesus, James). The first Christian Church. There was many different branches of Christianity. Different communities. Maybe the Ethiopian Church or the Protestants or the Catholics (with a large influence of paul) or the Gnostics have a message closer to Jesus's message or not. Clearly Jesus didn't write directly anything in the Bible. It doesn't really manner. What is important is what Christianity has become and what it means to you. Personally, since I'm not a christian or followers of any Abrahamic religions I see Christianity as a very influential religions (especially because of the Roman empire in Europe, and later, European colonialism) among many other equally interesting religions in the world (Buddhism, African religions, Chinese and Native Americans religions, Shinto, Islam, different branches of Christianity, Druidism, new religions, etc, etc). I guess I'm a bit more interested in African religions because I'm African.

In term of history, it seems the 4 Gospels chosen by the Roman Church (and other gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc), beside the influence of the christian community the writers were part of, were also influenced by a collection of Jesus saying called Q source. This Q source must have been similar to the Gospel of Thomas in its form. That is a collection of Jesus sayings. The Q source doesn't exist anymore.

Since Jesus didn't himself leave any writings or recorded messages, what is Christianity (a word Jesus didn't know), is what early Christians writers in the past and what Christians today make out of it.

BROS I Sincerely agree wit u thru d explanatn nd ur understandin which many christians will nt agree wit, even d bible said "seek d truth and d truth shall set you free"

hydeehip:
[color=#006600][/color]

BROS I Sincerely agree wit u thru d explanatn nd ur understandin which many christians will nt agree wit, even d bible said "seek d truth and d truth shall set you free"

Thank you but I think many Christians scholars hold similar thought as me since (beside the sentence I wrote with the word personally) I'm practically repeating what was written in the books I read and I know some of those authors are Christians. It's mostly based on the book with the amazon link I provided above.

For example, if you're catholic you can always say God was present when the Roman Church has chosen which books to include in the bible or even say that god was present when this pope or that pope took certain decisions. Gnostic people could develop the same kind of reasoning. You can always justify things (like the historical realities, modern sciences, etc) without denying your religions. I'm saying this because many people who study the history of Christianity are Christians!

cckris:

A Christian can NEVER join you in worshiping Satan. Just leave the Bible for Christians.

worshipping satan,i don't get you. Jesus is who i follow. I worship God by believing and follow Jesus

efficiencie:
na wa o...some ppl just open their mouth and satan filled it...Was Paul a commissioner? Paul commissioned nothing. The name Christian was used by the citizens of Antioch to labelled the believers in Christ...Christ told Cephas that upom this rock will i build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it...Read the Bible without your blindfold of prejudice!

Lol. Was Jesus a commissioner too? I expected that reply from you,you are ready to defend your religion.
The word “Christians” was first used by the unbelievers to identify the church goers in Antioch who listened to Paul and Barnabas teach for one year. The people called Christians were disciples of Paul and Barnabas. They were not disciples of Jesus.
Paul never preached the same message as Jesus preached and taught. Jesus was from the Father,Paul was from?
Jesus told Peter on this rock(of revelation that Jesus is the son of God) i will build my church.
The word church ( Greek is kurios- lord's house) was used instead of the word ekklesia(called out ones). I don't know why ekklesia was substituted for kurios.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
I will build my called out ones,little ones,my flock and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

hydeehip:
[color=#006600][/color]

The law Jesus was referring to was the law God gave Moses,the ten commandments. The summary of this law is to love God with your every thing and love your neighbour as yourself.
When Jesus was telling the young rich ruler,He only mentioned the ten commandments not other laws.
He was not referring to other laws,i learnt that they were over 600 laws if i am not mistaken. Eating pork etc. Part of this other laws are laws Jesus intentionally broke and He revised some. Let me remind you,part of these supposed laws- don't work on Sabbath, which Jesus disobeyed,stone to death those that commit adultery ,you must not plant two different crops on the same land,to mention few.
Jesus said believe and continue in my teachings John 8:31.

babafemi1000:


Thank you for this detailed explanation.

Still in learning mode, when Jesus said in matt 26:28 "this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins", what did he mean? Especially as he also had said earlier that "..and to give his life as a ransom for many". (Matt 21:28)

Funny both verses occur in the 28th verses. Do they mean the same thing or different things?

These are honest questions.

The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help! The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63.
If you read through John 6,Jesus was saying He is the bread of life. Eat my flesh and drink my blood. After this saying,many disciples left Him. Afterwards,He said to those that can bear and endure His saying. The Spirit is the one who gives life,the human nature is of no help that means my flesh and my body are of no help,the Spirit is the one who gives life. The words that i speak to you are Spirit and are life.
According to Matthew,was He giving a prophecy because He had never died then talk less of being resurrected.
We can actually link Matthew 26 John 6. They are the same.
Can pls answer my honest question, why will God need the blood of His son before He forgive sins,knowing fully well what Jesus taught about forgiveness? Jesus said if you forgive those that sin against you,your heavenly father will forgive you your sins vice versa.

AmunRaOlodumare:


Everything you say is ok. I even mentioned earlier Matthew 15:24 where Jesus basically says that he came only for Jewish people. You have the right to your own interpretations of what Jesus said and what Christianity means to you.

Everything we know about Jesus comes from what humans, early and later Christians, wrote about him. So you and I can't claim to know historical Jesus more than any of the past people. Even them, those who wrote things in the bible and other early christian works (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, James, Gospel of Mark, Paul, etc), didn't have full knowledge of the historical Jesus.

People who wrote in the Bible and other early Christians works, wrote what was important to them and their christian communities at the time of their writings. What they wrote was influenced by what they knew about Jesus and their current social situation. After the disappearance and end of influence of the first christian church called the Jerusalem Church. Different branches of Christianity started to develop away from the Jerusalem Church and its Jewish roots. For example, IIRC Mark's gospel seems closer to its Jewish roots while John the least closer iirc. It's influenced by the political situation of their christian communities when "Mark" and "John" wrote their gospels. John's christian community at the time must have faced harsh criticism and opposition from Jewish people in the roman empire practicing Judaism. Paul on the other hand was more concerned in making Christianity as something acceptable to the Romans authority (respecting the law, a slave must obey its master, etc). At the time, Romans view Christians just as another Jewish sect. Every writers in the Bible and other early christian works were influenced by the current situation of their community.

After the fall of the Jerusalem Church (which was led by the brother of Jesus, James). The first Christian Church. There was many different branches of Christianity. Different communities. Maybe the Ethiopian Church or the Protestants or the Catholics (with a large influence of paul) or the Gnostics have a message closer to Jesus's message or not. Clearly Jesus didn't write directly anything in the Bible. It doesn't really manner. What is important is what Christianity has become and what it means to you. Personally, since I'm not a christian or followers of any Abrahamic religions I see Christianity as a very influential religions (especially because of the Roman empire in Europe, and later, European colonialism) among many other equally interesting religions in the world (Buddhism, African religions, Chinese and Native Americans religions, Shinto, Islam, different branches of Christianity, Druidism, new religions, etc, etc). I guess I'm a bit more interested in African religions because I'm African.

In term of history, it seems the 4 Gospels chosen by the Roman Church (and other gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc), beside the influence of the christian community the writers were part of, were also influenced by a collection of Jesus saying called Q source. This Q source must have been similar to the Gospel of Thomas in its form. That is a collection of Jesus sayings. The Q source doesn't exist anymore.

Since Jesus didn't himself leave any writings or recorded messages, what is Christianity (a word Jesus didn't know), is what early Christians writers in the past and what Christians today make out of it.

Yes, Jesus said He came for the lost sheep of Israel. He preached,taught in their synagogues and performed miraculous signs. With all this,they did not believe in Him.
So He said,
For this reason I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
Matt 21:43.
He also told His disciples to preach to the ends of the earth.
You will make a very big mistake referring to Jesus disciples as Christians.

hydeehip:
[color=#006600][/color]

BROS I Sincerely agree wit u thru d explanatn nd ur understandin which many christians will nt agree wit, even d bible said "seek d truth and d truth shall set you free"

31 Then Jesus said to those Judeans who had believed him, "If you continue to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
John 8:31-32.
Jesus never said,seek the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Scholar8200:

Here is another personal opinion sans a shred of scriptural evidence!

I did not get you pls

AmunRaOlodumare:
I suggest people to read books about the early history of Christianity (up to Constantine at least).

I read a couple of books but this one is pretty good:
Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch

www.amazon.com/Christianity-First-Three-Thousand-Years/dp/0143118692/

I'm not a christian or follower of any Abrahamic religions but I'm interested in History (especially of Africa but the world too).

I don't think it's fair to say Jesus didn't create Christianity because Paul (who probably never met him or heard him preaching) was very important in the history of Christianity. It's evident that what Jesus was preaching to the Jews wasn't exactly the form of Christianity there's is today in its various forms and denominations. All religions change with time. Even Christianity today is not a single block. There's catholic, protestant, orthodox, ethiopian, independant churches, gnostic, mormons, etc. Saying Jesus didn't create what would become Christianity because it's different now than it was before is not fair imo.

Jesus was a Jewish itinerant preachers like there was many of them at that time among Jewish people. Preaching different views and branches of Judaism at that time (Sadducee, Pharisees, Essene, itinerant preachers, etc). There's John the baptist, the teacher of Jesus but there was also many other ones. Itinerant preaching was part of the culture of the Jewish people at that time. Like Christianity and Islam today, Judaism also had different branches. There was no normative Judaism. All the early disciples of Jesus were Jews. Even Paul later on first started preaching in Synagogues among converted gentiles speaking Koine Greek (Jesus was speaking Aramaic not Koine Greek like Paul). Beside John the Baptist mentioned in the bible, there's other itinerant preachers like Jesus mentioned in the Bible like Elijah and Jeremiah.

In general, in Jewish history, there was a lot of messiah claimants (messiah announced in the Jewish tradition):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants Some more popular like Simon of Peraea and Jesus, some less popular. John the Baptist was the teacher of Jesus.

Jesus was also a revolutionary. While still preaching the religion of his ancestor (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, fidelity to the law of Moses, torah, etc) to fellow Jewish people, he was opposed the the Sadducee temple leaders/priests/jewish elite, who were also roman collaborators. Israel was under Roman occupation at the time of Jesus.

Hmmm! Jesus never preached what Christianity is preaching. He never left heaven to come and establish another religion. He came for something more than that. For we all know that religion is earthly,it is established by man. God never created any religion.
John the Baptist was not the teacher of Jesus,if Jesus had any teacher,the teacher is God. John the Baptist was only His fore runner,a messenger sent before Him to make straight the path. Jesus was more than a preacher,He is the Son of God. He came to bring the kingdom of God to earth.

Scholar8200:
Besides, if you really are a disciple, you wont cherrypick: the Spirit reminded the disciples of all that Jesus said but did not lead them into all Truth hence you accept the Gospel that pertains to the former and reject the Epistles that pertain to the latter!
In other words Jesus was right regarding one but wrong regarding the other hence you reject it!

Hmmm! My sheep hear my voice,the voice of a stranger they won't follow. I am not cherry picking. Jesus said if you CONTINUE IN MY TEACHINGS. He never said i will speak through someone later. He said i will send the Holy Spirit. It is a personal thing. No one will teach His neighbor that know ye the Lord,for the law will be written in their heart. They will be taught by God not by Paul. I can claim i saw Jesus and i can perform miracles. Paul,epistles are not from the Holy Spirit. Pls get it

cckris:
Are you that hopeless, beyond redemption? If you can't find THE NEW COVENANT, promised in Jeremiah 31:31, which was established by Jesus, THE MESSIAH, or CHRIST in Greek, then you're most pitiable among humankind.

Hello, did you read the write up at all? how can we be so forward to condemn ppl.
Chai! Egwu di

777philosopher:
i am not surprised at your foolishness. because the caucasian race were created to be SAVAGE and EVIL In nature. the SUN is killing you gradually. very soon you will be wiped out from the surface of the earth.

See how sooooo dumb people talk.

rexben:
The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help! The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 6:63.
If you read through John 6,Jesus was saying He is the bread of life. Eat my flesh and drink my blood. After this saying,many disciples left Him. Afterwards,He said to those that can bear and endure His saying. The Spirit is the one who gives life,the human nature is of no help that means my flesh and my body are of no help,the Spirit is the one who gives life. The words that i speak to you are Spirit and are life.
According to Matthew,was He giving a prophecy because He had never died then talk less of being resurrected.
We can actually link Matthew 26 John 6. They are the same.
Can pls answer my honest question, why will God need the blood of His son before He forgive sins,knowing fully well what Jesus taught about forgiveness? Jesus said if you forgive those that sin against you,your heavenly father will forgive you your sins vice versa.

Okay, so it wasn't God who required his blood.

But then, to establish a covenant, there needs to be a shedding of blood. Jesus' blood was shed in this case.

If it wasn't God who required it, who then?

The devil? (As is in your first explanation to me about ransom:

"He laid down his life for his sheep to be free from the devil"

Empiree:
I dont think you get it yet. There is nothing like "non-trinitarian". It is a terminology used by later christians. It is your homework to find wh they are. They are actually on NL and they disagree with you. By 'non trinitarian' we mean those christians wh dont believe in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They exist here on NL. As for historical reference, Quran simply recognizes believers amongst Jesus disciples. Those who reject him are simply disbelievers. It's Christians denominations that categorized those terms

Alright name one of such disciples?

And I think i skipped where you asked me to quote ayah of Quran in reference to "clarification". That's your homework because you brought it up. Quote it then we take it from there.



where did i make statement @underlined?. Those who say Jesus is God or son of God or believe in trinity are all condemned by Quran. They commit major sins and there are textual references for them. And these sins are not like committing fornication or adultery (that are forgivable). These are sins that are NOT and cannot be forgiven.

Now, do you have any proof or sample of group of believers or disciples/followers of Christ before Muhammed that did not believe any of those highlighted?

If Allah commended them then not having any sample of such believers or disciples either in history/hadith with obvious proof that they existed between 33AD and 500AD etc calls for questioning. Why not call in your ustadh who may just have an idea?

AmunRaOlodumare:


Everything you say is ok. I even mentioned earlier Matthew 15:24 where Jesus basically says that he came only for Jewish people. You have the right to your own interpretations of what Jesus said and what Christianity means to you.

But Jesus also said He came for the World in John 3:16? The reference to Israel first is because they are the biological descendants of Abraham!

Everything we know about Jesus comes from what humans, early and later Christians, wrote about him. So you and I can't claim to know historical Jesus more than any of the past people. Even them, those who wrote things in the bible and other early christian works (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, James, Gospel of Mark, Paul, etc), didn't have full knowledge of the historical Jesus.

Here is Luke's prologue:

3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luke 1:3
This renders that statement of yours as strictly a personal opinion.

People who wrote in the Bible and other early Christians works, wrote what was important to them and their christian communities at the time of their writings. What they wrote was influenced by what they knew about Jesus and their current social situation. After the disappearance and end of influence of the first christian church called the Jerusalem Church. Different branches of Christianity started to develop away from the Jerusalem Church and its Jewish roots. For example, IIRC Mark's gospel seems closer to its Jewish roots while John the least closer iirc. It's influenced by the political situation of their christian communities when "Mark" and "John" wrote their gospels. John's christian community at the time must have faced harsh criticism and opposition from Jewish people in the roman empire practicing Judaism. Paul on the other hand was more concerned in making Christianity as something acceptable to the Romans authority (respecting the law, a slave must obey its master, etc). At the time, Romans view Christians just as another Jewish sect. Every writers in the Bible and other early christian works were influenced by the current situation of their community.

Was Jesus doing same when He said ," If any man compel the to go a mile, go with him two" or "give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" etc?

After the fall of the Jerusalem Church (which was led by the brother of Jesus, James). The first Christian Church. There was many different branches of Christianity. Different communities. Maybe the Ethiopian Church or the Protestants or the Catholics (with a large influence of paul) or the Gnostics have a message closer to Jesus's message or not. Clearly Jesus didn't write directly anything in the Bible. It doesn't really manner. What is important is what Christianity has become and what it means to you. Personally, since I'm not a christian or followers of any Abrahamic religions I see Christianity as a very influential religions (especially because of the Roman empire in Europe, and later, European colonialism) among many other equally interesting religions in the world (Buddhism, African religions, Chinese and Native Americans religions, Shinto, Islam, different branches of Christianity, Druidism, new religions, etc, etc). I guess I'm a bit more interested in African religions because I'm African.

Wish you wrote factually with verifiable references. These seem to be your own personal surmisings.

In term of history, it seems the 4 Gospels chosen by the Roman Church (and other gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc),

Wrong sir!

beside the influence of the christian community the writers were part of, were also influenced by a collection of Jesus saying called Q source. This Q source must have been similar to the Gospel of Thomas in its form. That is a collection of Jesus sayings. The Q source doesn't exist anymore.

Since Jesus didn't himself leave any writings or recorded messages, what is Christianity (a word Jesus didn't know), is what early Christians writers in the past and what Christians today make out of it.

Not true, consider Jude 3.

rexben:
Hmmm! My sheep hear my voice,the voice of a stranger they won't follow. I am not cherry picking. Jesus said if you CONTINUE IN MY TEACHINGS. He never said i will speak through someone later. He said i will send the Holy Spirit.

Jesus also said, neither pray I for these alone but for them that will believe THROUGH THEIR(APOSTLES) WORD John 17:20!

It is a personal thing. No one will teach His neighbor that know ye the Lord,for the law will be written in their heart. They will be taught by God not by Paul. I can claim i saw Jesus and i can perform miracles. Paul,epistles are not from the Holy Spirit. Pls get it

Now pls correct Jesus here:

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
John 21:17

Empiree, I await your reply here; that other thread does not allow comments from non-muslims. Meanwhile, if you and_or the Quran accept that Simon Peter was one of the disciples that was among the commended, then I hope you remember that he believed all that you claim was an unforgivable sin! In fact he is the one that all 4 Gospels record that declared,''Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God''.

Any way I await your response.

Scholar8200:
Alright name one of such disciples?

This is your homework. It's quiet irrelevant when it comes to islam. Quran only sums it up by saying "among Jesus awariyun (disciples) are believers. Amongst them are disbelievers. We not concerned about their names. Not even sahaba (companions) of the prophet muhammad mentioned by name in the Qur'an. If you have Jesus' disciples in the bible recorded to have preached Jesus pure teachings, bring them forward.

Now, do you have any proof or sample of group of believers or disciples/followers of Christ before Muhammed that did not believe any of those highlighted?

I know what you trying to do. This is very simple. I can't categori call mention names because Qur'an does not. All we know is Quran recognizes believers, hypocrites and disbelievers amongst his followers. For example in sura 3:52


"When Jesus sensed their refusal to acknowledge the truth, he asked, "Who are my supporters in God's cause?" The disciples said, "We are God's supporters. We have believed in God, so bear witness that we have submitted".

If Allah commended them then not having any sample of such believers or disciples either in history/hadith with obvious proof that they existed between 33AD and 500AD etc calls for questioning. Why not call in your ustadh who may just have an idea?

We can not reply on extant Bible to derive who those disciples are because it is a mix. If Peter's teaching of Jesus in the Bible you have says Jesus is a messanger, prophets, and servant of God, then, we accept him as a true disciple. But if he (according to the bible) says Jesus is son of God, or he is God or art of trinity, then we throw it in the garbage. However, we as Muslims have to be careful not to accuse Mr. Peter because it is Bible writers that speak for him. He might as well be a true disciple of Jesus(P).

My point is those whom you regard as true disciples of Jesus in the Bible, if their teachings are in conflict with message Jesus brought, which is "Hear O Isreal, God Is One", then, we reject it.

Empiree:
This is your homework. It's quiet irrelevant when it comes to islam. Quran only sums it up by saying "among Jesus awariyun (disciples) are believers. Amongst them are disbelievers. We not concerned about their names. Not even sahaba (companions) of the prophet muhammad mentioned by name in the Qur'an. If you have Jesus' disciples in the bible recorded to have preached Jesus pure teachings, bring them forward.


I know what you trying to do. This is very simple. I can't categori call mention names because Qur'an does not. All we know is Quran recognizes believers, hypocrites and disbelievers amongst his followers. For example in sura

Alright I did a little bit of the homework thanks to the thread you directed me to;it has this to say:

THE NAMES OF THE HAWARIYUN

Imam Qurtubi mentions that, the Hawariyun were twelve in number, but he does not give their names, except the name of the leader of the Hawariyun as Sham’oon (Simon Peter or Cephas) in the miracle of the ascension of the table, saying,

"Sham’oon, the leader of the disciples, asked, "Is this food that of paradise or the food of this world?" Jesus’ reply was, "This is food specially created for you, it is neither from paradise or this world. Allah said to it, "BE," and so it was.

Let's work with that. Peter said thus in Acts 3:13

13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go

He also said in his epistle:
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
2Peter 3:18

Furthermore, he said this:

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matthew 16:16

Now since this is the same person credited as one of the faithful hawariyun, meaning he was one of those commended and assured of Paradise, does that not appear contradictory?

^^ Shallow reply. I knew that was exactly what you tried to do.

Anyways, Muslims have exaplined the so called "son of God" or Sonship many times. Remember I asked you in other thread what sonship means with respect to "begotten son"?. You said begotten was not defined to you. So now, question is according to Mr. Peter, what is his understanding of begotten, and is sonship or son of God literally or metaphorically?

And apart from that, where is the original manuscripts or I should say the exact language spoken by Simon Peter used for "Son Of God". This is English language that only came around centuries after Jesus. Until you can prove that, then, your logic is still baseless.


Note,

Go back to my post you just quoted, i didnt finish it before. I have added few things


Remind You Again Of The Hadith


The following are Hadith (narrations originating from the words Muhammad), collected by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj Nishapuri, which indirectly emphasize Islamic beliefs concerning the disciples of Jesus:

It is narrated on the authority 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud that the Messenger of God observed: Never a Prophet had been sent before me by God towards his nation who had not among his people (his) disciples and companions who followed his ways and obeyed his command. Then there came after them their successors who said whatever they did not practice, and practiced whatever they were not commanded to do. He who strove against them with his hand was a believer: he who strove against them with his tongue was a believer, and he who strove against them with his heart was a believer and beyond that there is no faith even to the extent of a mustard seed. Abu Rafi' said: I narrated this hadith to 'Abdullah b. 'Umar; he contradicted me. There happened to come 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud who stayed at Qanat, and 'Abdullah b 'Umar wanted me to accompany him for visiting him (as 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud was ailing), so I went along with him and as we sat (before him) I asked Ibn Mas'ud about this hadith. He narrated it in the same way as I narrated it to Ibn 'Umar. The same hadith has been transmitted by another chain of narrators on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud who observed: Never was there one among the prophets who had had not disciples who followed his direction and followed his ways. The remaining part of the hadith is like that as narrated by Salih but the arrival of Ibn Mas'ud and the meeting of Ibn 'Umar with him is not mentioned.

— Sahih Muslim

Empiree:
^^ Shallow reply. I knew that was exactly what you tried to do.

Anyways, Muslims have exaplined the so called "son of God" or Sonship many times. Remember I asked you in other thread what sonship means with respect to "begotten son"?. You said begotten was not defined to you. So now, question is according to Mr. Peter, what is his understanding of begotten, and is sonship or son of God literally or metaphorically?

And apart from that, where is the original manuscripts or I should say the exact language spoken by Simon Peter used for "Son Of God". This is English language that only came around centuries after Jesus. Until you can prove that, then, your logic is still baseless.

So explain Peter's 'original understanding of the meaning of sonship'' and back your explanation with references so you dont end up putting your opinions in his mouth. Besides, did Allah speak of explanation or just titles when all that use/believe that were condemned?

Note,

Go back to my post you just quoted, i didnt finish it before. I have added few things


Remind You Again Of The Hadith


The following are Hadith (narrations originating from the words Muhammad), collected by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj Nishapuri, which indirectly emphasize Islamic beliefs concerning the disciples of Jesus:

It is narrated on the authority 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud that the Messenger of God observed: Never a Prophet had been sent before me by God towards his nation who had not among his people (his) disciples and companions who followed his ways and obeyed his command. [size=15pt]Then there came after them their successors who said whatever they did not practice, and practiced whatever they were not commanded to do.[/size] He who strove against them with his hand was a believer: he who strove against them with his tongue was a believer, and he who strove against them with his heart was a believer and beyond that there is no faith even to the extent of a mustard seed. Abu Rafi' said: I narrated this hadith to 'Abdullah b. 'Umar; he contradicted me. There happened to come 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud who stayed at Qanat, and 'Abdullah b 'Umar wanted me to accompany him for visiting him (as 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud was ailing), so I went along with him and as we sat (before him) I asked Ibn Mas'ud about this hadith. He narrated it in the same way as I narrated it to Ibn 'Umar. The same hadith has been transmitted by another chain of narrators on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Mas'ud who observed: Never was there one among the prophets who had had not disciples who followed his direction and followed his ways. The remaining part of the hadith is like that as narrated by Salih but the arrival of Ibn Mas'ud and the meeting of Ibn 'Umar with him is not mentioned.

— Sahih Muslim

But Peter did not come after! He was a living witness! hence this does not apply to him.

Empiree:



"When Jesus sensed their refusal to acknowledge the truth, he asked, "Who are my supporters in God's cause?" The disciples said, "We are God's supporters. We have believed in God, so bear witness that we have submitted".



We can not reply on extant Bible to derive who those disciples are because it is a mix. If Peter's teaching of Jesus in the Bible you have says Jesus is a messanger, prophets, and servant of God, then, we accept him as a true disciple. But if he (according to the bible) says Jesus is son of God, or he is God or art of trinity, then we throw it in the garbage.

Then adjust your Quran accordingly because as long as his name is mentioned as a faithful disciple, you will always meet with this contradiction!

However, we as Muslims have to be careful not to accuse Mr. Peter because it is Bible writers that speak for him. He might as well be a true disciple of Jesus(P).

Interesting! So, what about the Epistles he authored? Besides, aside from the Bible, we have enough in history to determine who Peter was and what he believed and taught! What then?

My point is those whom you regard as true disciples of Jesus in the Bible, if their teachings are in conflict with message Jesus brought, which is "Hear O Isreal, God Is One", then, we reject it.

While your Quran still commends him?
Now, why was Peter killed the way he was killed?