Can you have two religions and be faithful to both?

Jesus PBUH is the Messiah. Al Mahdi is someone from the lineage of the Prophet PBUH who will come to battle the Anti Christ (Al Dajjal) in anticipation of the return of Jesus PBUH.

The term Messiah is defined differently in Islam and Christianity.

 

Anytime, I took lots of god info out of the discussion, so thanks to you too!

 

Advice taken. I'm actually not trying to make an argument, I was just wondering if the actual differences in the descriptions actually fundamentally makes them two different Gods. I was hoping others more versed in Islam would chime in.

About the source, I'm well aware of the dangers in using sources. Which is why I apologized if the source I was using was seen as not credible for reasons I was unaware of. It just seemed to summarize what I had heard of the differences between the two religions decently well.

Again, it's just a question that I was thinking of as I read through the thread. I'm new to the D&D discussions, so forgive me if I've made a mistake here.

 

reincarnation is in no way compatible with resurrection so I just am not seeing the whole Christianity/Buddhism angle.

 

Fair enough. This is the reason I quoted 3 translations, and I suggest that we could use some commentaries as well if it seems appropriate. Most of us can’t read the Arabic so i think using a number of translations and other sources is important to try to ensure we don’t get mislead by perhaps an awkward translation.

Here we’re getting into the meat of some of these issues. I’ll cut to the chase fairly quickly to move this along. I fully agree that what you have outlined here are the traditional beliefs that most Muslims hold, but I cannot find support for these positions in the Qur’an, and so far I haven’t been able to find anyone who can show me any such support. Perhaps you can help me out.

Just a quick word on language before I go on. The word Christianity is just a word to denote the followers of Christ. At the time they were all Jews and it was only after it became clear that many Jews were not going to follow Jesus’ teachings that it became necessary to differentiate between the two groups. The world bible is actually a 14th century word, but the word Gospel goes back the early second century BC, so it would have been a well known term when the Qur’an was written.

On the Bible, what we now call the Bible was essentially agreed on by about 400CE, although the gospels go back centuries before that. At the time the Qur’an was written, then, what we now call the Bible had existed for at least a couple of centuries, and remember that there were many millions of Christians in the Roman Empire and surrounding area by this time, so they were a very well established group. These were the Christians of the time, and the Bible, essentially as it is now, was their book then as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Christianity#Spread_of_Christianity

What makes this a particularly important point is that I have not been able to find anywhere in the Qur’an that suggests that the Christians it’s referring to are not the Christians of the time, nor can I find any suggestion that the established book the Christians used then, the book we now call the Bible, had been corrupted. If you know of any I’d be very interested in reading them. There are many references to Jews and Christians, but I find no suggestion that their book is not the book the Qur'an refers to. I believe there is one reference to an isolated group of Jews who were corrupting their text, but this does not suggest that either the accepted Jewish or Christian books of the time had been permanently corrupted. There are references to specific Gnostic beliefs of the time, and often you have to understand from the context that these references are to specific groups and not to main stream Christianity, but I believe that the context does make this quite clear. There are references to the Trinity, but whatever one thinks of the way the Trinity is described it isn’t part of the Bible. It is an extra Biblical attempt explain a part of the Bible, but the word Trinity never appears in the Bible, and, imo, that makes it a separate issue. There are also a number of passages like this one, however:

002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the f Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

See also 5.047 and 5.069. I would say that these fairly clearly confirm the Christian teachings as true, and uncorrupted, and the word of God. (For the expanded context around these passages please see the link). Remember the context that this was written in. This was written in the 7th century CE. The Christian Bible, essentially as it exists today, had been the accepted book of the Christian church for at least a couple of centuries at that point, and by this time there were many millions of Christians who were using it, so the Christians and their book would have been well known at this time.

Further, just to put everything I have on the table, the preliminary research I did at the time I looked into this, which I would have to dig up again, suggested that the early Muslims did not believe that the Bible had been corrupted either, and that this was a belief that became popular around the time of the Crusades. It would seen that an invading “Christian” force sent by the Pope that indiscriminately slaughtered Muslim women and Children, (and Christian women and Children as well, btw), made the Muslim scholars believe that Christianity had somehow gone astray. I think they were right on that point, but I think they were wrong on how it went astray.

This is a more challenging point, but I don’t think that what the Qur’an says about Jesus truly conflicts with what the Bible says, or at least I haven’t been able to find a clear contradiction. From a Christian standpoint there are definitely some very big omissions, but curiously no clear contradictions that I could find. Why would certain information be given to one group and other information given to another? Is this the two pens idea that is referred to in John 10? I am truly not sure, but it is a very curious thing. Here’s another example of what I’m talking about. 4.157-4.159 is often quoted by Muslims as a direct contradiction to what the Bible says, but on closer examination this is not the case. (See the link for all three translations).

004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Note that this does not say that Jesus didn’t die. It just says that those who wanted him dead did not kill him, although it appeared to them that they did. This matches what Jesus himself said in John 10:

17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 10;&version=31;

There is also another precedent for this kind of language in the Qur’an, after a battle the Muslims had had with their enemies where they appeared to kill their enemies:
008.017
YUSUFALI: It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).
PICKTHAL: Ye (Muslims) slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou (Muhammad) threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

It appeared to the Muslims that they slew their enemy, but they did not. It was God. Likewise there is no claim in 4.157 that Jesus did not die on the cross, only that that those who thought they killed him did not kill him. As John 10 tells us, Jesus laid down his own life. No one took it from him.

004.158
YUSUFALI: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

This is what Christians believe as well, but it didn’t happen right away. It happened 3 days later. Why doesn’t the Qur’an mention that here? That’s a very good question indeed, but note that, strictly speaking, there is no contradiction here. If there are indeed two pens then maybe the Muslims are being told what is important for them in their pen?

004.159
YUSUFALI: And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html

This is also what Christians believe. From a Christian standpoint there are definitely some very puzzling gaps in the information being given here, but I also see no clear contradiction with Christian beliefs, which is just as puzzling.

 

I'm probably newer than you are here lol so no worries... and I was definitely not saying that you intentionally did anything. If I worded it that way, my fault. I just wanted to note the dangers of translating the Qura'an. It is only allowed for those who are truly interested in becoming Muslim, and even then, it is a temporary thing and must be accompanied with someone's guidance.

Allah specifically chose Arabic as the language of the Quraan (it is mentioned in there) and with good reason. It wasn't that Muhammad PBUH happened to be Arab.

Sorry if I came off a bit strong in the last post, I just wanted to be quick to make sure anyone who read it also read my post right after it.

Something liek a sinner being a state rather than an identity, it's impossible to get from flipping through the translation of the Quraan. So in that light, I understand a lot of the misunderstandings. I also understand that the translations are necessary because its important for people to have a window into Islam. But I've just always been taught to stress the importance of what it is - a window.

Hope my post on the word Allah helped the discussion as well. Thanks

 

We definitely need some medium to discuss this, but it is important to always beware of the dangers of translating the Qura'an. I will point out the errors in them where necessary, and there are many. This way, we can use it for the discussion.

Regarding the word "Christian", the point I was trying to make was that Jesus PBUH did not create a seperation between Chritians and Jews by name. As you mentioned, it is is man-made. What makes this even more interesting is that Moses PBUH similarly did not call his people Jews. This was, again, man-made due to some form of necessity. In essence, you believe in Jesus PBUH, Jesus PBUH believed in the teachings of Moses PBUH, and Moses PBUH believed in the words of those before him (Abraham PBUH). I am not sure if it is mentioned anywhere that Jesus PBUH, the Father or the Holy Spirit gave Moses PBUH his message. Please let me know if it is mentioned, it is a personal area of curiosity for me.

Regarding the other points..

I have honestly never specifically looked for this in the Quraan. I will do a quick search and come back to you. However, the reason no one asks this is due to the simple logic (assuming a good understanding of Islam) behind it. Here are some reasons:

- Jesus PBUH is not Allah. We get this from the Qura'an. It is mentioned in the Bible apparently (I wouldn't know where to cite these), which is the main contradiction.
- Lot PBUH committing incest with his daughters. This is unfathomable for one of Allah's messengers.
- Although minor, the Bible (I think) has undergone several revisions just in the last century. I am confused by why this would be done, but perhaps have misunderstood it. As I understand it, the King James Bible (for example) has been revised at least a few times. From the Islamic viewpoint, it has been subjected to human error since the author(s) or Jesus PBUH are not present to oversee these revisions.
- Allah made it clear that those who followed Moses and Jesus PBUT must follow Muhammad PBUH now. So, for example, a Christian who lived in the Prophet's time having witnessed the Prophet's miracle is not a follower of Jesus PBUH.
- Remember that, according to Islam, Jesus PBUH is a Muslim. This makes him a follower of Allah. So a follower of Jesus PBUH must be a follower of Allah first. There is a clear seperation in the Quraan - Allah will ask Jesus PBUH if he said to people that he or his mother are gods. He will say (paraphrased) no way. Therefore the follower of the Holy Trinity, according to Islam, is not a follower of Jesus PBUH. Similarly, those who call Jesus PBUH the Son of God are not followers of Jesus PBUH and therefore are not the Christians that Allah is refferign to.
- I'm sure you will have also noticed that Allah prefaces everythign in the Quraan regarding his messengers/prophets with (paraphrased) "what I revealed to them" or "what they revealed to their people". It is never refferign to what their people understood, how they behaved, how they wrote it, etc etc.


I think I've addressd everything there? Let me know if I've missed something.

One key thing to note is that in Islam, we are not confused about what the verses mean. For every verse, we have the Prophet's explanation of it and why it was descended on him at that moment.

For example, the Prophet told us that Jesus PBUH was replaced with "Al Shabiih" which translates to "The Look-a-like" before he would die on the cross.

What underlines it all is that Allah said that Jesus PBUH is not Allah. He said that Allah doesn't have a father or a son. He says that Allah has no companion. He said that Jesus PBUH can not die to atone for the sins of humanity. These are all Quraanic references and point to the Bible's inconsistencies with Islamic belief.

Even more important is that the Qura'an is an entity. The Prophet PBUH said that "no other intercessor will have a greater status than the Quraan, neither a Prophet nor an angel." So according to Islamic belief, should there be any CONTRADICTIONS between the Qura'an and the Bible, then the Bible must be changed. Ommissions are expected because it is the 2nd to last mesage from Allah. However, contradictions mean that the Bible was changed because:

1) Jesus PBUH has not made the mistake and will answer to Allah on the day of resurrection regarding this.
2) Allah has protected the Quraan from change and has adapted it to all times, past present and future such that no change is necessary.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that something happened after Jesus PBUH's death that was out of his hands. When Jesus PBUH answers to Allah on the day of judgement, he will say that he beared witness over his people while he was alive and after that, he left them to be witnessed under Allah. So the only timeframe where a change could have occurred was after Jesus PBUH's death.

I think the details become fairly controversial in nature from this point onwards so if you would like to discuss further, please email me on alwayshaveparis@gmail.com . I would rather not discuss it over here due to the touchy nature of the subject and the many different inquiries it would raise to other reading. Hope that's ok.

Thanks

 

Can I have to wifes and be faithful to both??

 

That's up to your heart, the wives and ultimately God to decide, no one else.

Good luck though. Wouldn't want to be you lol.

 

I don't know whether or not you can't practice both faiths; but I think being a minister gets tricky. I do think we'll start seeing multi-faith churchagogueamosques eventually; just a natural progression from (or response to) the worship arenas we have now.

 

Thanks for the response, Mathloom. I think that it’s when we start to dig into this level of detail that we start to find some very interesting, and some very deep, misunderstandings of each other’s religions. I do agree that it’s very important to be sympathetic and tactful when addressing these issues, but I think a lot can be learned by addressing them.

This paragraph is a good example of what I expect is an misunderstanding. I sense that you’re alluding to something here that probably seems like a very clear issue to you, but I’m honestly not catching your point yet, so please bear with me and try to explain your point a little more. I’ll try to define my beliefs a little more as well so we can establish a better basis for understanding. I and most Christians worship God, one God. The Bible calls this the most important commandment:

The Greatest Commandment
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=12&version=31

This is the core of Christianity. The term Christian only means that we follow Jesus’ teachings about God, starting with this one.

With respect Moses, God talked to him directly, starting at this point in the Bible.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=3&version=31

I think there are many traditional beliefs in many Christian denominations, and probably in many denominations of Islam as well, that come to be understood a certain way over time, but if you go back to the books you’ll find that they aren’t there in the same way they are being taught. I suspect that you would agree that many of the difference between the different Muslim sects stem from traditional beliefs that are not part of the Qur’an, for example, and the same is true in the Christian world. Therefore, I think it’s imperative for all of us to get back into the books to see for ourselves what they say. I think it’s very important to draw on the opinions of scholars, but every sect has its scholars and they can’t all be right. Scholars are human and fallible, and although they can help us greatly in understating the texts, ultimately we have to be responsible for ourselves. The minute we place blind faith in a scholar is the minute we turn our back on God and make that scholar our God. Unfortunately many people get led astray this way. Since we’ve mentioned the Crusades a couple of times, that is an example of a group of people who followed what a religious leader said to them instead of what their book said, and they were led astray. My overall point here is, we need to look at what the books actually say.

It’s important to be very careful with this point. There are three possible relationships we could be talking about . 1) Jesus is God. 2) Jesus and God are two completely separate beings, and 3) Jesus and God are one. 3) is what most Christians believe (a notable exception being the Mormons) but I will grant that it’s not an easy concept to grasp, from a worldly perspective anyway. There is indeed a great deal about Jesus that is difficult to grasp from a worldly perspective. How could he perform miracles? How could he be born of a virgin? Muslims do believe these things about him, however, so they understand that God’s relationship with Jesus is different than it is with anyone else. Jesus has no earthly father. His only father is God. He is also the only one who is sinless, and no mere man is sinless. He is also the one who will judge at the end times, and no mere man is qualified to judge another man, etc.

A major stumbling block for Muslims with respect to understanding Christianity, however, is around the issue of polytheism. Polytheism was a big issue in and around Mecca around the time the Qur’an was written, and consequently there are a lot of references to it in Qur’an. My understanding is that these polytheists were not Christians, nominally or otherwise, but nonetheless this focus on polytheism means that when many Muslims see the word Trinity, or anything else that in any way suggests multiple beings, they immediately think polytheism. Most Christian groups have monotheism as their most basic core belief, however, as the passage above suggests, and it wouldn’t even cross their minds to that someone might think they weren’t monotheistic, so this becomes a major point of misunderstanding between the two religions.

I’m not up on this issue, but here’s a link that looks like it might be helpful.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrincest.htm

I will make a couple of general points, however. Muslims and Christians agree that only Jesus was sinless, so it’s not impossible that Lot could have committed a sin. Secondly, you have to be very careful with the traditional Muslim beliefs about what the Bible says in general. Misunderstandings go both ways, of course, so I’m not singling out traditional Muslim beliefs, but in this case I think there’s a good chance that what we’re looking at here is a traditional Muslim misunderstanding of what the Bible says. Here’s another example of this kind of thing that I suspect you’ve heard before:

From Matthew 15
21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=15&version=31

I suspect that you will have heard this quoted as proof that Jesus came only for the Jews and not for the Gentiles. I have had a number of Muslims innocently repeat this to me, and I was quite surprised by that. In order to interpret this passage that way you have to take it completely out of context. If you read just the next few verses after this you will see that they change the meaning entirely:

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

As you can see, Jesus did help her. This shows that Jesus did in fact come for the Gentiles as well, as is later described in more detail. This was a test of her faith, and the message is of this passage is that if you have faith, no matter who you are, then Jesus came for you. The point I’m making is that there are some quite common traditional Muslim beliefs about the Bible says that are completely wrong, so you have to be very careful. Don’t believe what you’re told without at least reading the whole passage in the Bible first.

I would have to refresh my memory on this, but I think there have been some minor points of contention, some perhaps relating to the translations. It’s always a good idea to look at a few different translations of the Bible as well, btw. The makeup of the original Bible was agreed on by a council of men anyway, and the Qur’an was written down by a man as well. Both Muslims and Christians believe that God is capable of keeping his word intact, however, and I believe that there are even passages in both books that explicitly say that the word cannot be permanently corrupted, although I don’t have the exact passages handy.

I don’t believe that this can be found in the Qur’an. I haven’t been able to find it anyway, nor have I been able to find anyone who can point it out to me. Also note that the passage I quoted above seems quite clearly to tell Christians and Jews to follow their own books. It even warns them that if they don’t “they are no better than those who rebel.” See 5.047 above.

The word Muslim means, “one who submits to God”, so yes, Jesus was a Muslim, and every good Christian and Jew are Muslims as well. The other part of you paragraph I think we’ve dealt with above in a couple of ways. I think you are alluding to some of the deep misunderstands that many people from the Islamic traditions have about Christianity. At the time the Qur’an was written there were a number of quite bizarre heresies and Gnostic groups, some of which I believe thought Mary was a God. No major Christian denomination that I know of ever believed that Mary was a god of any sort, however, and no major denomination that I know of ever believed that Jesus was a separate, independent, God. Again, Jesus is unique, as both Christians and Muslims agree. Jesus describes his own relationship with God like this:

30 I and the Father are one.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 10;&version=31;

See also:
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[e]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

See also:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=17&version=31

This is another place where I’m not following your point. Could you please explain a little further?

What I’m really interested in is the passages from the Qur’an that support these issues you’ve raised.

I’m not so sure that this is the case. There are many different sects in Islam that have some widely varying beliefs. It would appear that the different sects are interpreting the Qur’an quite differently in some places, unless all of the differences come from traditional beliefs. Some of the differences seem too extreme to be just based on tradition, however.

My understanding is that this belief is a traditional belief and not from the Qur’an. I was also told that there is a significant amount of disagreement in the Muslim world about this. If you know of the relevant passage in the Qur’an we can go straight to the source and see what it says on this, however.

There are references to God not having a companion and to not having a son in the worldly sense, but I believe that these are referring to the beliefs held by the polytheists, Gnostics, and other heresies of the day. Words like companion and other contextual cues I believe show that these are not references to the Christian beliefs about the relationship between Jesus and God. In fact the Qur’an is supportive enough of Biblical beliefs that it tells Mohammed to talk to the Christians if he has any doubts about what has been revealed to him:

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

Again, I believe that this is a traditional Muslim belief that is not supported by the Qu’ran.

This leads us to the matter at hand, which is comparing the Bible and the Qur’an. In order to do that we need the passages from the Qur’an that say the things you’ve listed above. If you can provide those I will provide the relevant passages from the Bible, although note that my knowledge of the OT is certainly weaker than my knowledge of the NT. I took this on as a project some time ago and was very surprised to find that most of the contradictions that I expected to find simply weren’t there in any form, and the few that appeared to be there on first reading turned out to be references to non-Biblical beliefs. Basically I couldn’t find any contradictions that held up once you really looked at them. I then talked to a few Muslims I knew but in the end we didn't make much progress. I didn’t want to push the matter so my project came to a dead end.

Thanks again for responding. I may well want to do this, but first I would like to find the Qur’anic support for the points that have been raised already. From my readings in the Qur’an to date it seems to me that most of these beliefs are traditional beliefs that do not come from the Qur’an. This kind of thing has existed in the Christian world as well, btw, so this would not be unique to Islam.

 

Are you finished with this thread Mathloom? Let me know when you're done and I'll make some closing remarks.

 

The Shia sect of Ithna'asharis believe that an Imam will one day return. I don't know too much about the belief other than the historical aspects.

Here's what wiki says....
In Twelver eschatology, Muhammad ibn Hasan ibn ˤAlī, or al-Mahdi (مهدي transliteration: Mahdī, also Mehdi, "Guided One"), is the twelfth Imam and the Mahdi, the ultimate savior of mankind and prophesied redeemer of Islam. Twelvers believe that the Madhi has been hidden by God (referred to as occultation) and will later emerge to change the world into a perfect and just Islamic society alongside Jesus (Isa) before the Yaum al-Qiyamah (literally "Day of the Resurrection" or "Day of the Standing").


After reading the wiki, I'm surprised to read the part about including Jesus (pbuh) as emerging with the Imam. I totally didn't know that one. But then again, it's wiki so take it with a grain of salt.

 

Just pick and choose what you like about each religion.....

Religion is a personal choice anyway.

DD

 

Grizzled,

Sorry to keep you hanging, I will reply soon. Just want to have enough time to put a decent amount of thought into it. Hope that's ok.

Thanks

 

That's quite alright. I do understand that there is a lot there. I kind of fast tracked this thread by condensing a previous conversation I've had on the topic, and that's the reason for the very dense post. Take as much time as you need.

 

Ok, I think the following verses are quite clear on the following topics:

I'm pretty sure that this covers everything but the story of Lot PBUH. There are major and minor sins in Islam. Scholars are split regarding this.. one side says that, other than Muhammad PBUH (who committed none), other Prophets all may have possibly committed minor sins (although not necessarily). The other side believes that none of the Prophets committed any sins. I haven't heard or read anything which singles out Jesus PBUH for this and would be interested to know about it if you have. Lot PBUH committing adultery and/or incest is unfathomable in Islam.

I'm sorry this took so long. I also want to apologize for the delay as I responded twice already with slightly more material, however, they just got erased when I clicked on reply. The superstitious part of me was wondering if I should even reply lol so I just decided to be patient lol. Hope it works this time.

Oh and feel free to note things I may have forgotten to include...

Thanks

 

those would be called non-Christians. The entire faith is based upon that fundamental belief. If you do not believe that, you are not a Christian

 

I really don't think that humans can judge, in the way that you have, who is Christian and who is not.

They may not fall under your definition, but you obviously don't fall under theirs either. This is because neither you or tthey are the definers of Christianity.

Unitarian Christians consider themselves Christians. You consider yourself Christian. But I don't think God has given either of you the authority to decide who is and isn't.

This is how I understand it from the Christian standpoint. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Mark 12:28-31

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'There is no commandment greater than these."


Mathloom - reading through your post above (thank you for it)....again this is why I say I find the Koran to be misstating Christianity. from my viewpoint it creates a strawman, calls it Christianity; and then knocks it down. but it's not really talking about what believers believe. It takes the word "son" far more literally than orthodox Christianity ever has. The Trinity...the use of the word "son"...all of these are imperfect in describing a God that is beyond words....but they're as good as language gets us. We're not suggesting that Jesus is God's son in the way my son is my son....but that they shared some common essence that was far deeper than what the rest of us know with God...that he was the personification of God. Not that God had sex and needed to get a steady 9-5 job to take care of the baby.

I have to say, I find that part frustrating and always have when speaking of my faith with Muslims. They all claim to know what it is I believe as a Christ follower....and have a discussion directed to what they're telling me we believe. Not to what we actually believe.