Christians! Do you believe Mohammed's prophethood?

[I, Brian]

Moved to Abrahamic faiths.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Nusaybah

The only verse which is closest to the concept of ‘trinity’, is the 1st Epistle of John, Chapter No.5, Verse No.7, which says… ‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word and the holy ghost, and these 3 are one. But if you read the Revised Standard Version, revised by 32 scholars… Christian scholars, of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different co-operative denominations, they say… ‘This verse of the Bible - 1st Epistle of John, Chapter 5 Verse No.7 is an interpolation, is a concoction, is a fabrication’ - It was thrown out of the Bible. Jesus Christ peace be upon him, never claimed Divinity.

Nusaybah,

Thanks for your curiosity. If you properly investigate the history of 1 John 5:7-8, you will find that the following verse was not found in the earlier Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

It was introduced in the Latin Vulgate. Since it was in Latin, it wasn't as authentic. Moreover, it came later. Quite obviously, someone extrapolated "Father, Word and Holy Spirit" to make it clearer.

Modern versions of the Bible now contain:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 1 John 5:7-8

In some places in the New Testament, "water" is used to denote "flesh," as three-quarters of human flesh is water. An example is in John 3:5-7 where Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about the difference between being "born of water" and "born of the Spirit." He makes a reference to "flesh" which suggests that "flesh" may be denoted by "water." I'd like to clarify to you that this isn't a "scientific" association, but a "literary" one. It's literature not science. The Bible is a piece of literature, not a science textbook.

Science revolves around definitions. Literature is about imagination. Literature is where you explain and describe the undefinable. Faith and beliefs require imagination, which is why the Bible is a piece of literature rather than a science textbook, legal document, or technical manual.

Understanding Christianity, therefore, requires not only the ability to understand literature, but also the ability to imagine and visualise. The two go hand-in-hand.

So let your imagination run loose, and have fun daydreaming, Nusaybah.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Thanks for your curiosity. If you properly investigate the history of 1 John 5:7-8, you will find that the following verse was not found in the earlier Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century.

Where does one properly investigate the history of earlier versus latter Greek manuscripts? How is it known someone did not remove it?

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

In some places in the New Testament, "water" is used to denote "flesh," as three-quarters of human flesh is water.

I disagree that water denotes flesh. Flesh stays with you, can be cut off and re-grown. Whereas water is required almost daily to transport ALL of your energy in the bloodstream and take away the waste information for what you did with that energy. Water and blood are fluids that will flow and can be pumped, whereas flesh is a solid that will not.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

An example is in John 3:5-7 where Jesus is talking to Nicodemus about the difference between being "born of water" and "born of the Spirit." He makes a reference to "flesh" which suggests that "flesh" may be denoted by "water." I'd like to clarify to you that this isn't a "scientific" association, but a "literary" one. It's literature not science. The Bible is a piece of literature, not a science textbook.

A science textbook is literature. Perhaps you mean fiction versus non-fiction? Subjective versus measured?

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Science revolves around definitions. Literature is about imagination. Literature is where you explain and describe the undefinable. Faith and beliefs require imagination, which is why the Bible is a piece of literature rather than a science textbook, legal document, or technical manual.

False. Science revolves around measurement and theory to explain the measurement. Faith does NOT require imagination. In fact the opposite is better. I find that the bible (and Qur'an) are also legal documents and technical manuals too. For example, I would advise deriving a better understanding of the word 'Faith' from them rather than from Webster or common use.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Understanding Christianity, therefore, requires not only the ability to understand literature, but also the ability to imagine and visualise. The two go hand-in-hand. So let your imagination run loose, and have fun daydreaming, Nusaybah.

A scientist has his eyes open and uses them to take measurements of the world we live in. You seem to advocate closing your eyes and wandering around blindly.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Where does one properly investigate the history of earlier versus latter Greek manuscripts? How is it known someone did not remove it?

The earlier manuscripts had the phrase, "The Spirit, the water and the blood." The phrase, "Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit" was substituted later as an attempt to make it clearer. Modern scholars were looking back at what happened during the sixteenth century and put the earlier phrase back where it belonged. It was never removed, just substituted for something else.

The process of investigating earlier and latter manuscripts and deciding which one is the authentic original is called textual criticism.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I disagree that water denotes flesh. Flesh stays with you, can be cut off and re-grown. Whereas water is required almost daily to transport ALL of your energy in the bloodstream and take away the waste information for what you did with that energy. Water and blood are fluids that will flow and can be pumped, whereas flesh is a solid that will not.

You're putting it too much in a physiological context. I was explaining why one might denote "flesh" with "water" for theological purposes. The "water" is probably used to describe "what drives life in the physical world" as opposed to "what drives life in the spiritual world" (the spirit). Hence, "born of water" and "born of the Spirit." Water and spirit are both substances that flow, but water is physical and spirit is spiritual. Water carries the nutrients of the physical world, while spirit carries the nutrients of the spiritual world. Water denotes the physical (hence flesh) and spirit denotes the spiritual (hence soul). That's what I was intending to say.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

False. Science revolves around measurement and theory to explain the measurement. Faith does NOT require imagination. In fact the opposite is better. I find that the bible (and Qur'an) are also legal documents and technical manuals too. For example, I would advise deriving a better understanding of the word 'Faith' from them rather than from Webster or common use.

That depends on what you mean by faith. Your concept of faith seems to be science-oriented or "fact-oriented." It also seems to hang a lot on "methodical and systematic provability." I don't agree with that. While I would agree that faith is believing in something that you might be able to prove, I would disagree that faith is believing in something scientific. That seems to be your concept of faith . . . It is something proven through measurements, procedures, techniques, mathematics and logic.

I disagree with that because my concept of faith is that it's personal. If it's personal, then it must involve entities with personality. Because these entities have personality, they must have a mind of their own and must be self-aware. In other words, these entities are spontaneous.

Faith also implies trust. Trust is also something personal. Spontaneous entities may defy or even disobey science and logic. They have a mind of their own. They may lie to you and betray you. Can you trust something that doesn't follow railway tracks? Yes you can, if you understand how it thinks and feels. It is possible to tame spontaneous entities that have a mind of their own. Can you prove or be sure they are trustworthy if they don't follow logic or don't stay on the railway track? Yes you can, if you get to know them properly and get close and deeply personal with them.

Sure, proof requires reasoning. However, reasoning is not always scientific or logical. Scientific and logical reasoning can't explain or predict everything. In personal relationships with family and friends we use a different kind of reasoning. We use personal and sentimental reasoning. We do this everyday without even thinking about it. And yes, you can prove that someone can be trusted. Well, it's more like them proving it to you. Science isn't spontaneous and doesn't have a mind of its own. It isn't self-aware. Science is the kind of reasoning that you can manipulate. People, on the other hand, are spontaneous and can't be manipulated like science. No two people are the same.

While you may have a different view of faith, it doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. Faith can be viewed in different contexts. Faith is often about something that cannot be proven, or something of which there isn't absolute certainty. To me faith is personal. That's why I said that it may require imagination. When dealing with people, we often need to use some imagination. With regards to a Personal God, imagination can be powerful!!!

I guess we just see the Bible differently. For me, the use of words and the expressions used in the Bible suggest that it is more like a Journal of experiences and insights. I do, nevertheless, believe there is something in the Bible that is greater than the common journal and what some people may ascribe to it. The experiences of reading the Bible are like a journey and adventure in itself. The experience of this journey/adventure is what allows me to understand a personal God. Reduce it to a science textbook, legal document and technical manual and I will probably be left with nothing I can appreciate personally.

My concept of faith is based on what I find in the Bible. I used the dictionary definition just to check if my experience of "faith" from the Bible was compatible with what the word "faith" actually meant -- that I wasn't straying from its true meaning.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

A scientist has his eyes open and uses them to take measurements of the world we live in. You seem to advocate closing your eyes and wandering around blindly.

Science doesn't and can't explain everything in life. Science isn't everything. You may open your eyes to a world of science and logic but close your eyes to a world of imagination and creativity. My eyes are open to both, but I see more value in a creative, artistic and imaginative experience rather than one based solely on science, mathematics and logic. You can't appreciate one without the other.

[cyberpi]

Regarding textual criticism: I think criticism adds but alteration removes from the eyes of others.

Regarding physiological context versus theological purpose: The verse discussed associates the physical and the spirit.

Regarding "born of water" and "born of Spirit". Do you think that you are in heaven? If you do there are a number of verses to read. If not, then I have a different read of John 3. Jesus (pbuh) says that people are born of the flesh, which is flesh, and of the Spirit, which is spirit. So do you say water is not water? But water without flesh is water, just as spirit without flesh is spirit... flesh is flesh, spirit is spirit, and water is water. To enter heaven again one must be born again, born of the water and born of the spirit. By John 3, a person can go to heaven again, the Kingdom of God, but must be born again to enter it. That is how I read it.

Regarding Faith: No… I maintain it is a very simple relationship between people with soul and spirit, and between people and God (swt). Your relationships may be private but a relationship is external… not personal. Consider a person on a deserted island with nobody in the flesh to have a relationship with. All of the personality, emotions, love, creativity, logic, literature, beliefs, scientific understanding, knowledge, truth, or wisdom in the world does nothing for the fact that there is no person to place Faith in and be Faithful to.

As a further example, if I choose to place Faith in you then it is NOT my personality, emotions, logic, or knowledge (etc) that are relevant. It is directing my eyes and ears to listen to you, to learn your definitions and place my heart, soul and mind into whatever you ask, teach, or command. I do NOT even have to pre-evaluate you, believe you, or find you trustworthy to place faith in you. Those are only pre-conditions one might apply. If I think of a good deed and do it for you, then I have placed NO faith in you, but if I listen to you tell me what a good deed is and do it your way, then I have placed faith in you. There is a monumental difference there. In this way an adult can place faith and be faithful to a young child just as the young child can place faith and be faithful to the adult.

I am happy to place faith in you, or anyone, but when it comes to the definition of the word ‘faith’ I wish to hold to the teaching of the prophets that I read in the Bible and the Qur’an. I see a growing difference in definition of ‘faith’ with Webster and society over the centuries. It seems that faith became believe, then a belief or religion, and then even the absence of measurable information or knowledge… which is a fully polar opposite definition. Back to my example of me placing faith in you, it requires me receiving information from you to place faith in you and yet even if I had complete knowledge of your every thought or feeling I could still choose whether or not to place faith in you. Some information is required and there is certainly no requirement for a lack of verifiable information. The information itself is not the faith and believing the information is not faith… believing in you and doing your will per the information you provided is faith. That is of course my viewpoint and if anyone sees a difference with a parable or word of God (swt) on the subject of Faith I would love to hear it.

Regarding ‘proving’ trustworthiness: A covenant, agreement, or law is not required to place faith but if I say that I will place faith in you doing something you ask, then you are by definition the one able to judge whether I comply and am trustworthy. I think faith and faithfulness are external, visible, and can thus be judged.

Regarding science: The aspect of science you describe is called determinism. You see that people are different and non-deterministic. The laws found and presented by measured science up until the last century have been deterministic, meaning in a closed system (without people) if you know the initial state of things you can accurately determine the outcome. However, if I pick up and read a science textbook believing what is said and following its advice then I am placing faith in the author of the textbook. As an example the author in a chemistry book tells me to NOT mix bleach and ammonia because it will create a fume that will kill me. So if I read this and then go out and duplicate the experiment anyway, then I placed no faith in the author. So where you have developed a separation between science and faith or between your eyes and your mind, I see no separation. Science is a written diary of measured experience and theory that is no different than a history book… because both the experiment and history can be repeated. If it pleases you to close your eyes and imagine gravity does not exist or that a part of history does not exist… that is not faith. You are welcome to challenge gravity whenever you wish and if gravity obeys you some day then God (swt) clearly places greater faith in you. New science and history books would soon be written.

[BlaznFattyz]

the spirit, water, and blood are one. that is the renewal of lives, to be born again. when one asks God into his life, to take over, to ask for forgiveness, to worship him that is done in spirit. we have the ability to talk to God in spirit which god is. secondly is when one has devoted himself to loving god and following him,then as an outwardly gesture, it is water that renews our lives as baptism. just as jesus had done, as it pleases the Lord. jesus is also that living water, that you drink and never be thirsty again, once you repent the fountains of forgiveness are abundant. in blood, is the new covenant with our lord. it is in his blood that was shed for our sins, it is his blood that drink of in communion, it is thru his blood that there is salvation. all three the spirit, water, and the blood are all one in the showing of Gods love, grace, and relationship with him. he can renew us, and all three of the spirit, blood, and water have a part in that. similarly, whatever the father does, the holy spirit and the son do also.

[Saltmeister]

Textual criticism: I didn't say "criticism" by itself. Textual criticism doesn't add anything. Textual criticism is where you examine manuscripts and the verses they contain and come to a decision on which one was the original verse. If all manuscripts have matching verses, there is no problem here. If the verses are different, you have to decide which one is more likely to have had earlier roots, and therefore has the best chance of being the authentic original. Look it up in wikipedia.

Regarding "born of water" and "born of Spirit": No, I'm not in heaven. Here's how I think it works:

A person who is not "born of the Spirit" does not have a connection with God. The Spirit is God's Spirit. A person "born of the Spirit" has a connectedness with God and His kingdom. There's a sense of belongingness between him and God, and being "born of the Spirit" gives you the kind of spiritual power that is experienced in that kingdom. (Hebrews 5:4-5) Those not "born of the Spirit" aren't connected to God or his Kingdom and don't sense that power. Water is symbolic of the physical and spirit is symbolic of the spiritual. I think the reason why "water" is used here is because water is a flowing substance, just like spirit. That's why "born of flesh" and "born of water" mean the same thing. They're both physical.

Another point. You can only be "born of the Spirit" once. When you are "born again" in this world, I don't think it's a complete spiritual rebirth -- it's a partial spiritual rebirth. The spiritual rebirth is a process. If you neglect your spiritual life, you will slide back to square one and may have to start again. I think it makes more sense to see it that way.

Faith ("Personal" being external): Well . . . I didn't say the "personal" was never external. There are two words here: intrapersonal and interpersonal. Intrapersonality is intimacy with yourself. Interpersonality is intimate knowledge of others. The word "personal" does not imply what you keep to yourself. It can also mean what you share you someone else. You may have secrets that you only share between yourself and God. You entrust those secrets with no-one else but God. There may also be secrets that God entrusts to you. You therefore have a personal relationship with God. You and God have a personal understanding of each other shared by nobody else.

Faith (Having faith in someone based on what they tell you): What I was suggesting was very similar to what you said. It is necessary to analyse, study and examine the entity in which we put our faith. You can't exactly put your faith in an entity you don't quite understand. However, you don't have to know absolutely everything about him/her/it to put your trust in him/her/it. There is a limit to the amount of information you can extract and beyond that amount of information you will have to make a decision on whether to trust or not. Faith is the belief in something "deeper" that you probably haven't seen yet.

Perhaps the difference between my view and your's is that I believe that faith is personal. You can't "put your trust" in an entity with no personality, as trust is personal. You can put your confidence in an impersonal entity, but not your trust. Faith may be based on either trust or confidence. My view of faith is based on trust, your's is based on confidence.

Concerning the notion of God in Christianity, understanding God's personality is important. God expresses Himself in His religion. If one discerns that a message (which is an expression of God's will and purpose) doesn't match the way God has been known to express Himself, it may be doubtful that that message comes from God. In other words, that message can't be trusted. I can trust God, but how can I know a message comes from God? I must know His personality and character in order to know if it was really God or not. (1 John 4:1)

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Regarding science: The aspect of science you describe is called determinism. You see that people are different and non-deterministic.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

...........
If it pleases you to close your eyes and imagine gravity does not exist or that a part of history does not exist… that is not faith. You are welcome to challenge gravity whenever you wish and if gravity obeys you some day then God (swt) clearly places greater faith in you.

Well, that's perhaps the critical point where you and I differ. I don't challenge the concept of gravity, as gravity is not part of spirituality. I don't see scientists, technicians, engineers, doctors, bureaucrats, psychologists, politicians and political scientists. etc. as today's prophets and apostles as they speak on matters of determinism.

To me, science and spirituality are not the same thing. Spirituality is non-deterministic. Science is deterministic, usually quantitative and sometimes qualitative. Science is predictable and can be manipulated. However, this means that if faith relied on science and determinism, I would have trouble discerning between messages from God and some malign, mischievous trickster (possibly the devil), or impostor that seeks to sabotage my relationship with God. Because everything is deterministic, I wouldn't be able to discern between a message from a sincere God and manipulations from the malign trickster. I would have to use my knowledge of determinism to determine if the message has been used to manipulate me. But if the whole universe is deterministic, then the whole universe is itself a manipulation. Who, then do I trust?

Spirituality, in my view, is not unpredictable. It is a kind of non-determinism that is predictable even if it isn't deterministic. It's just that you make qualitative assessments of someone else's behaviour and expressions in order to understand them. You can't understand them completely, but you have a fair idea of how they might think.

[Azure24]

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

As You all know all Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, how about You, do you believe that Mohammed is/was a prophet?

No.

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

and one question follows, if you dont is that because He lived after Jesus?

Yes.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Textual criticism: I didn't say "criticism" by itself. Textual criticism doesn't add anything. Textual criticism is where you examine manuscripts and the verses they contain and come to a decision on which one was the original verse. If all manuscripts have matching verses, there is no problem here. If the verses are different, you have to decide which one is more likely to have had earlier roots, and therefore has the best chance of being the authentic original. Look it up in wikipedia.

Regarding "born of water" and "born of Spirit": No, I'm not in heaven. Here's how I think it works:

A person who is not "born of the Spirit" does not have a connection with God. The Spirit is God's Spirit. A person "born of the Spirit" has a connectedness with God and His kingdom. There's a sense of belongingness between him and God, and being "born of the Spirit" gives you the kind of spiritual power that is experienced in that kingdom. (Hebrews 5:4-5) Those not "born of the Spirit" aren't connected to God or his Kingdom and don't sense that power. Water is symbolic of the physical and spirit is symbolic of the spiritual. I think the reason why "water" is used here is because water is a flowing substance, just like spirit. That's why "born of flesh" and "born of water" mean the same thing. They're both physical.

Another point. You can only be "born of the Spirit" once. When you are "born again" in this world, I don't think it's a complete spiritual rebirth -- it's a partial spiritual rebirth. The spiritual rebirth is a process. If you neglect your spiritual life, you will slide back to square one and may have to start again. I think it makes more sense to see it that way.

Faith ("Personal" being external): Well . . . I didn't say the "personal" was never external. There are two words here: intrapersonal and interpersonal. Intrapersonality is intimacy with yourself. Interpersonality is intimate knowledge of others. The word "personal" does not imply what you keep to yourself. It can also mean what you share you someone else. You may have secrets that you only share between yourself and God. You entrust those secrets with no-one else but God. There may also be secrets that God entrusts to you. You therefore have a personal relationship with God. You and God have a personal understanding of each other shared by nobody else.

Faith (Having faith in someone based on what they tell you): What I was suggesting was very similar to what you said. It is necessary to analyse, study and examine the entity in which we put our faith. You can't exactly put your faith in an entity you don't quite understand. However, you don't have to know absolutely everything about him/her/it to put your trust in him/her/it. There is a limit to the amount of information you can extract and beyond that amount of information you will have to make a decision on whether to trust or not. Faith is the belief in something "deeper" that you probably haven't seen yet.

Perhaps the difference between my view and your's is that I believe that faith is personal. You can't "put your trust" in an entity with no personality, as trust is personal. You can put your confidence in an impersonal entity, but not your trust. Faith may be based on either trust or confidence. My view of faith is based on trust, your's is based on confidence.

Concerning the notion of God in Christianity, understanding God's personality is important. God expresses Himself in His religion. If one discerns that a message (which is an expression of God's will and purpose) doesn't match the way God has been known to express Himself, it may be doubtful that that message comes from God. In other words, that message can't be trusted. I can trust God, but how can I know a message comes from God? I must know His personality and character in order to know if it was really God or not. (1 John 4:1)



Well, that's perhaps the critical point where you and I differ. I don't challenge the concept of gravity, as gravity is not part of spirituality. I don't see scientists, technicians, engineers, doctors, bureaucrats, psychologists, politicians and political scientists. etc. as today's prophets and apostles as they speak on matters of determinism.

To me, science and spirituality are not the same thing. Spirituality is non-deterministic. Science is deterministic, usually quantitative and sometimes qualitative. Science is predictable and can be manipulated. However, this means that if faith relied on science and determinism, I would have trouble discerning between messages from God and some malign, mischievous trickster (possibly the devil), or impostor that seeks to sabotage my relationship with God. Because everything is deterministic, I wouldn't be able to discern between a message from a sincere God and manipulations from the malign trickster. I would have to use my knowledge of determinism to determine if the message has been used to manipulate me. But if the whole universe is deterministic, then the whole universe is itself a manipulation. Who, then do I trust?

Spirituality, in my view, is not unpredictable. It is a kind of non-determinism that is predictable even if it isn't deterministic. It's just that you make qualitative assessments of someone else's behaviour and expressions in order to understand them. You can't understand them completely, but you have a fair idea of how they might think.

Kind of useless beating a dead horse...don't you think?

v/r

Q

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Kind of useless beating a dead horse...don't you think?

v/r

Q

Dead horse? Not sure what you mean . . .

That was in response to cyberpi's post. That grew out of a whole chain of discussions that started with 1 John 5:7-8. It evolved out of what the original "the Spirit, the water and the blood" really meant and what Jesus was saying to Nicodemus in John 3.

So what did I gain from that discussion? I got to know the point of view of someone who saw science and spirituality as one and the same, as opposed to my view that science and spirituality were separate. It was quite nice to be able to explore that with someone with a different view as opposed to one with the same view (which would be boring). It couldn't exactly be a pointless discussion if the "dead horse" talked back, could it?

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

As You all know all Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, how about You, do you believe that Mohammed is/was a prophet?
and one question follows, if you dont is that because He lived after Jesus?

1. How many times is Mohammed mentioned in the bible?
2. How many of Mohammed's words are recorded?
3. How many of his prohecies are foretold in the bible?

Answers
1. None.
2. None.
3. None.

So this being the fact, why would christians believe in your prophet?

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

1. How many times is Mohammed mentioned in the bible?
2. How many of Mohammed's words are recorded?
3. How many of his prohecies are foretold in the bible?

Answers
1. None.
2. None.
3. None.

So this being the fact, why would christians believe in your prophet?

It would, of course, be quite a feat to see Muhammed in the Bible, considering he didn't live for some 500 years after it was written. Now if he was foretold in the Bible, I'd might be inclined to consider him a prophet.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Dondi

It would, of course, be quite a feat to see Muhammed in the Bible, considering he didn't live for some 500 years after it was written. Now if he was foretold in the Bible, I'd might be inclined to consider him a prophet.

Suuuurley though Dondi... if any person was seen as a prophet in the bible you would have to believe that. But heh Mohammed isn't seen as prophet connected to the bible so yeah....

[Amica]

Peace.

When it comes to 'peace faith' topic, Christians are quickly abandoning their acceptance of the OT's teachings on warfare, yet when you ask them, they believe in the same God of Hebrews. However, their actions spoke differently throughout the ages (even in the present!).

There were Christians long time ago whose Christian believes caused other Christians around them to call crusade like wars against them. Bosnian Bogumils, it is said, did not believe in cross, the icons, the baptism, etc. They had their own church, and called themselves Christians/Bogumils (the dearn ones to God). They were a tolerant, peaceful people who did not mingle their religious believes with the politics of their state in Bosnia. Unfortunately, their Catholic and Christian Orthodox brethren were unsatisfied and attacked them numerous times of their existance.

When the Ottoman Turks came to the Balkans, despite the initial warlike situation, the Bosnian Christian Bogumils converted to Islaam. Many argue that their understanding of the Chrisitan teachings caused the conversion because of the similarities.

Today's Chrisitianity must go against the message of Qur'an because how else can they explain this: a god who incarnated in order to kill himself for the humanity or a a god who kills his son for the humanity. The Qur'an, like the OT, demand Oness of God. It is easy for today's Christians to 'negate' Jewish refusal about the Trinity simply by claiming that the NT is the update of the first Revelation. But the current state of their dogma is unable to battle with the Holy Qur'an that preaches about Hebrew God (Universal God)--even some Jews are voicing that the Muslims also believe in the God of OT (the God being One and the Same for Jews and Muslims) because the Book declares there is no trinity and Jesus is simply a human beling, chosen to deliver the Message.

[Francis king]

[quote=Dor;32379]
"Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places-"

and then u say- "But in the Qur'an it says that the Gospel taught that fighting for God (religion) is acceptable- and quote-.
They fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon God in the Torah"...etc...

yet here surely, both are fighting for god..? jesus' advice might be to place ur sword bk in its scabbard cos ur gonna be fighting a different type of battle, but that does not mean xtians are natural pacifists- Jehovah himself physically kills unbelievers all over the bible (but hey, that's okay, because he's God, n he's right, etc, etc)

I'm paraphrasing, obviously, here, but, arjuna, on the battlefield of kurukshetra with lord krnsa, says- oh, god, I cannot kill my uncles, cousins, etc, in the opposing army, it will pain me to do this, pls, dont make me, and krsna says- them's the breaks, arjuna, sometimes u have to fight...

now, I answered this post as I was brought up a xtian, and although I was never a "bible basher" I feel I understand Christ's message, and as a rational adult I'm aware that the bible is open to a lot of interpretation, and I'm also aware that it has been modified, recodified, revised, etc, at least 8 times officially... as a relatively intelligent being, I have obviously come across some teachings of Mohammed, and I am also aware that the Koran is open to a lot of interpretation also...

...I believe that both of these men were prophets of God, and I like to believe that although there may only be the one god, there are millions of individuals all over the world, with different characters, different mindsets, different personalities, and I like to think that God would visit more than the odd one every millenia... I think that, fundamentally, both messages are the same, and should be viewed as good news, for humanity... I also think it would be nice if everyone could sit round the table like intelligent beings and get rid of all the gunk and madness and nastiness within our doctrines, so that we could concentrate on our similarities, instead of our differences...

... hopefully jesus and mohammed are sitting off now, in some seventh heaven, having a beer together, and talking about football...