Is Islam really the sams religion as Judaism ans Christianity?

[Infidel144]

All of them were written at least a century later, they are all unauthentic

I was under the impression that it was generally accepted that the canonical 4 were written well less than a century after Jesus death (Mark by about 70AD extending to John by about 100AD).
Has something changed?

[RedGuard]

70 years or 100 years doesn't matter. Someone who was 30 years old in 1 ad isn't writing a first hand account in 70AD. What exactly makes one gospel the word of god and another not, knowing this?

[Infidel144]

70 years or 100 years doesn't matter. Someone who was 30 years old in 1 ad isn't writing a first hand account in 70AD.

Who was 30 years old in 1AD?

What exactly makes one gospel the word of god and another not, knowing this?

Invisible sky creatures don't have words.
You, however seemed to put some emphasis on the dating.
And I, at this point, just wanted to know if there was more if there was some change in the generally accepted dating, since I have not kept up on it.

[RedGuard]

Who was 30 years old in 1AD

Lots of people. it seems like you are intentionally trying to obfuscate.

can you actually verify that any of the characters alive during the time of Jesus even existed during the period this event supposedly happened?

And I, at this point, just wanted to know if there was more if there was some change in the generally accepted dating, since I have not kept up on it

seems like a big thing to not know if you arguing that the most important even ever happened during this time frame

[basics]

It is actually. God can lie. You may it would not, but he has the absolute power to do it. You said that god could not permit them to enter heaven without shedding blood. You introduced requirements for gods actions. That god needed to do work arounds to get something done. That is quite blasphemous.

PointOfViewGun,

So my friend who is it that is called the " father " of lies? If memory serves me correct that title was Satan's, not our Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ and certainly not the Holy Spirit. Therefore it falls on you to tell us when God in any of His Personages lied?

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

So my friend who is it that is called the " father " of lies? If memory serves me correct that title was Satan's, not our Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ and certainly not the Holy Spirit. Therefore it falls on you to tell us when God in any of His Personages lied?

God having the ability to lie is not the same thing as god lying. There is capability and there is action. By claiming that god can't lie you are questioning god's power.

[Infidel144]

Lots of people. it seems like you are intentionally trying to obfuscate.

No. You are being vague. I wanted to know to whom you were referring.

can you actually verify that any of the characters alive during the time of Jesus even existed during the period this event supposedly happened?

seems like a big thing to not know if you arguing that the most important even ever happened during this time frame

I was not arguing anything. Are you referring to yourself here, as you did not know what you claim to be a big thing (that the canonical four were generally accepted to have been written).

[Mayer]

I disagree that Judaism and Christianity are the same. Christianity started as a jewish sect, but it was quicky disowned by the orthodox jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. His radical teachings led him into direct conflict with the Pharisees, who feared loss of power and privilege. He died at the cross, being ridiculed as wanna-be king of the jews with a crown of thorns. Opening christianity to gentiles was another revolution, turning christianity from its insular jewish roots into a world religion. Then came romanization and seperation from the jewish past.

[basics]

I disagree that Judaism and Christianity are the same. Christianity started as a jewish sect, but it was quicky disowned by the orthodox jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. His radical teachings led him into direct conflict with the Pharisees, who feared loss of power and privilege. He died at the cross, being ridiculed as wanna-be king of the jews with a crown of thorns. Opening christianity to gentiles was another revolution, turning christianity from its insular jewish roots into a world religion. Then came romanization and seperation from the jewish past.

Mayer,

Christianity started with righteous Abel although it was not given that name for some time to come but nonetheless every saint including Abraham were not Jews until God instituted circumcision into their ranks. Every one of them before that ritual were non Jews believing God that He would send the promised " seed " to save the fallen race. So from the loins of a Gentile from Ur in the Chaldeas came what we know as the tribes of Israel so belief in the promise came before Judaism. That said all the prophets predicted that out of Judaism would come Messias as did the saints either Gentile or Jew, the separation being that the Jews saw in Him a military figure like David Who would overcome Israel's enemies to restore the empire that he, David, built. So, what they did over those years was to kill all the prophets and disregard what they the prophets had written about Messias. The religious sect at the time of Jesus were the Pharisees who put the fear of death into the people with their laws but it was the Sadduccees who held the Priesthood's power and so had upper hand causing friction between the two. When Jesus came on the scene it upset the whole applecart and so like the other prophets He had to be done away with little realising He was much more than a mere prophet. The saints of God recognised Him but not these others.

Where does Islam come in all this? Other than the fact that Ishmael was the bastard son of Abraham, it doesn't, why? Because the promises of God were given to Sarah through her son, Isaac, Ishmael having to set up home elsewhere with his mother Hagar. The only promise God gave them was that he would become a great nation so any claim to Divinity is just a claim without God's backing.

[Common Soldier]

70 years or 100 years doesn't matter. Someone who was 30 years old in 1 ad isn't writing a first hand account in 70AD. What exactly makes one gospel the word of god and another not, knowing this?

Not sure exactly what younare alluding to, I don't see the relevance of what you say to the topic. I don' know of any ancient source that said any of the 4 canonical gospel writers was 30 years old in 1 AD. For gospels written from 70 AD to 90 AD, that would but the wirhin thr lifespan of potrntial eyewitnesses. The consensus of scholars is that the 4 canonical.gospels were written between 70 to 90 AD, when possible eyewitnesses for Jesus could still havw been alive. Even the Gospel of John, which scholars agree was the last to be writte at around 90 AD, an eyewitness who was 20 could have been alive in 90 AD. Although rare, people did sometimes live to 90 in thr ancient world.

A gospel that was within thr lifespan of eyewitness is much more likely to have some authentic information in it than one written after all the eyewtnesses to the events were long dead.

[Common Soldier]

Note, the earliest biography of Muhammad waa written by an author who was born 100 years after Muhammad, and we no longe a direct copy of that biography, but only have quotes of it by another wrter who lived still later. Even a difference between 70 and a 100 years is very significant. Something written 70 years later could still have eyewitness the events still alive, while something written 100 years later not only would any eyewitness be dead, but dead for a couple decades at least.

[basics]

RedGuard,

We know that from Pentecost on letters or records were being sent out to the infant churches from Jerusalem so I think it is safe to assume that most of these letters were about the escapades of Jesus and His disciples. Pentecost was only mere days from Jesus going up into the Glory after having been seen by around 400 different people. So anything arriving at these churches would have been eyewitness accounts whether by the Gospel writers or by others who were in contact with them. The very first task in them would have to be the veracity of what these letters contained because we also know that the Sanhedrin and the circumcision group among the Christians was to destroy these churches as far as the Jewish membership was concerned plus a twisting of the Gospel by the latter. Since the origin of these churches was principally Jewish these letters would have been in Aramaic or Hebrew so where these are today is anyone's guess. When these churches grew to include Gentiles the writings had to be translated mostly into Greek and it is these from which we get our most recent knowledge. So, were the original Gospels written in Greek or Hebrew? Probably the latter yet it is to the Greek that we refer. So the dating comes down to a choice between the greek versions or the lost Hebrew versions that they must have been originally, why? Because no Jew would have preferred Greek to Hebrew especially inside any religious frame.

[Common Soldier]

RedGuard,

We know that from Pentecost on letters or records were being sent out to the infant churches from Jerusalem so I think it is safe to assume that most of these letters were about the escapades of Jesus and His disciples. Pentecost was only mere days from Jesus going up into the Glory after having been seen by around 400 different people. So anything arriving at these churches would have been eyewitness accounts whether by the Gospel writers or by others who were in contact with them. The very first task in them would have to be the veracity of what these letters contained because we also know that the Sanhedrin and the circumcision group among the Christians was to destroy these churches as far as the Jewish membership was concerned plus a twisting of the Gospel by the latter. Since the origin of these churches was principally Jewish these letters would have been in Aramaic or Hebrew so where these are today is anyone's guess. When these churches grew to include Gentiles the writings had to be translated mostly into Greek and it is these from which we get our most recent knowledge. So, were the original Gospels written in Greek or Hebrew? Probably the latter yet it is to the Greek that we refer. So the dating comes down to a choice between the greek versions or the lost Hebrew versions that they must have been originally, why? Because no Jew would have preferred Greek to Hebrew especially inside any religious frame.

Most scholars agree that the New Tetament was originally written in Greek. Which makes sense, since Greek was THE international language of the time, so much so that many famous Greek works were never translated into Latin, since any educated Roman would be able to read them in the original Greek. (One man, Boethius, was reaponisble for most of the early medieval Latin trasnlations of the classical Greek philosophers whwn he realized knwoledge of Greek was being lost in the West as the western half of the Roman empire was collapsing in the 6th century.). To reach the widest audience, the writers would have written in Greek.

Many Jews lived outside of Israel, and these Jews, like Paul, would know and wrote in Greek. Only churches in Galillee and Judea, and maybe Syria would have used Aramaic or Hebrew. When it came to the cities of the Roman Empire, Greek is what would have been spoken in the eastern half, even in areas lie Syria where most of the rural people spoke Aramaic. But we digress.

[basics]

Common Soldier,

OK, let's try it this way, the Bible that was in existence when Jesus arrived on the scene was the Old Covenant Scriptures known as the Torah to the Jews. It was then and still is written in Hebrew or Aramaic. At that time Jews were not allowed to associate with Gentiles if they could avoid it because Gentiles were considered unclean and pagan. Yes, under certain circumstances like business transactions with gentiles they would have had to use Greek but only if necessary. We read of how Peter was taken over the coals for even eating with them and we know that the mob when confronting Pilate wouldn't step over a certain line at his palace. The main point is however that after Pentecost when letters were being sent out to new churches these churches were made up of Jews who had been at Jerusalem for the feast. James having taken over the church was a circumcationalist to the core and from that we can assume correctly that any letters would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic, why? Because the Torah was still in all the synagogues written in that language and to to express Jesus' teachings from them these Jews would have stuck to what they knew to get the real meanings out of them. So we had a situation where letters probably passed backwards and forwards between jerusalem and these new believers.

When Gentiles began converting in those areas the obvious places to learn more was at the Jewish dominated gatherings where it wouldn't be surprising to find certain people having to interpret what was written until written translations became available and as more and more Gentile converts took over it would be these translations that took precedence. However back at Jerusalem the church most certainly maintained the Hebrew as we find owing to the trouble that the Gospel was getting into that Paul eventually had to go up there to sort things out. We read that he counted it a great blessing that he was able to speak in many tongues and so translation was not a problem for him when it came to preaching in different dialects or languages. If everyone spoke Greek why did he need so many languages? To give an example of that here in Scotland, if I went into certain Northern places where people only use Gaelic it creates no problem for them but it does me as I can't. Oh they can speak English yet because of who they are Gaelic is their language and that can be said about many peoples across the world never mind the Jews. Language was and still is what binds a people and centuries later we find the same regardless that Spanish and English are the languages most used in the world.

[Common Soldier]

Common Soldier,

OK, let's try it this way, the Bible that was in existence when Jesus arrived on the scene was the Old Covenant Scriptures known as the Torah to the Jews. It was then and still is written in Hebrew or Aramaic. At that time Jews were not allowed to associate with Gentiles if they could avoid it because Gentiles were considered unclean and pagan. Yes, under certain circumstances like business transactions with gentiles they would have had to use Greek but only if necessary. We read of how Peter was taken over the coals for even eating with them and we know that the mob when confronting Pilate wouldn't step over a certain line at his palace. The main point is however that after Pentecost when letters were being sent out to new churches these churches were made up of Jews who had been at Jerusalem for the feast. James having taken over the church was a circumcationalist to the core and from that we can assume correctly that any letters would have been in Hebrew or Aramaic, why? Because the Torah was still in all the synagogues written in that language and to to express Jesus' teachings from them these Jews would have stuck to what they knew to get the real meanings out of them. So we had a situation where letters probably passed backwards and forwards between jerusalem and these new believers.

By the time of Jesus, the Torah had been translated into Greek, because there were many Jews outside of Palestine who only new Greek. At the Feast of Pentecost the spirit moved the apostles to speak in all kinds of languages, whifh implied Jews outside Judea and Galilee were not just speakig Aramaic or Hebrew. Keep in mind, the people at Pentecost were all Jews, Gentiles xid not go to Jerusalem to celebrate that feast. Paul wrote in Greek, which means churches outside Palestine were Greek speaking, even the Jews. We know from Acts Paul knew Hebrew.

When Gentiles began converting in those areas the obvious places to learn more was at the Jewish dominated gatherings where it wouldn't be surprising to find certain people having to interpret what was written until written translations became available and as more and more Gentile converts took over it would be these translations that took precedence. However back at Jerusalem the church most certainly maintained the Hebrew as we find owing to the trouble that the Gospel was getting into that Paul eventually had to go up there to sort things out. We read that he counted it a great blessing that he was able to speak in many tongues and so translation was not a problem for him when it came to preaching in different dialects or languages. If everyone spoke Greek why did he need so many languages?

The educated and city dwellers would speak Greek, but the local uneducated rural people might only speak the local language. Since we know from Acts Paul didn't only preach in the cities but in the towns and rural areas as well, he would have needed more languages.

To give an example of that here in Scotland, if I went into certain Northern places where people only use Gaelic it creates no problem for them but it does me as I can't. Oh they can speak English yet because of who they are Gaelic is their language and that can be said about many peoples across the world never mind the Jews. Language was and still is what binds a people and centuries later we find the same regardless that Spanish and English are the languages most used in the world.

In your example, even if the place in Scotland spoke Gaelic, these days they would know English as well as yousay, and you could communicate with them in English. If you went to India, the educated people would know English, but many of the uneducated people of India only know their local language. If you wanted to send a letter a church in India, you would send it in English, since the educated people would know English and the people who only knew the local language would be uneducated and likely not able to read anyways. Same situation in Paul's time with Greek.

[basics]

Common Soldier,

I think we can agree that at the feast in Jerusalem and the Temple worship this would have been in Aramaic or Hebrew. Gibbon reckons that over a million Jews would have been there and what surprised these worshippers most was that mere Galileans were speaking in their various tongues. Oh they were used to the worship language of Hebrew yet here they were hearing the Gospel in their own languages, a bit being Greek but most in their own dialects. Obviously they had never experienced this before when in Jerusalem for it then played a part in the conversion of some three thousand that day. It wasn't just that they heard their own dialects rather the power of the Gospel in them. They were used to hearing the scrolls read in Hebrew but I'd be very surprised if they'd ever heard the scrolls read in their own dialects, that in accordance to Jewish law. That said I have to admit a certain defeat in that various forms of that language were adopted but nonetheless affirm that did not happen in the Temple at Jerusalem.

[PointOfViewGun]

This thread have been very mind opening. I didn't know certain Christian sects defied gods power so openly. It appears that there are those that deny omnipotence of god to make Jesus' non-sacrifice a sacrifice. It was useful to establish collective guilt for all Christians as well. Thank you basics for enlightening us on these.

[Common Soldier]

This thread have been very mind opening. I didn't know certain Christian sects defied gods power so openly. It appears that there are those that deny omnipotence of god to make Jesus' non-sacrifice a sacrifice. It was useful to establish collective guilt for all Christians as well. Thank you basics for enlightening us on these.

This thread has been very mind opening indeed. It shows that the arrogance, conceit and sense of superiority is not confined ro ignorant or conservative Muslims, but is found among Muslims who are left leaning as well and are not conservative. I guess that is not surprising, since the Koran asserts things that are not backed by any supporting facts and run counter to what everybody else who is not a Muslim say. For example, the Koran and Muslims in general (because Koran says it) believe Jesus did not die on the cross, despite the agreement of everyone else at the time, pagans, Jews and Christians, that Jews was executed and did die. That is a pretty conceited and arrogant claim to assert, especially being made 600 years after the fact against people who actually alive at the time.

I might point out that it is not denying God's omnipotence to say that he simply would not behave in a way that goes against his character. It the same as asserting you are denying Superman's strength and invulnerability when you say that Superman could not rob a bank; to rob a bank would go against Superman's personality and everything he is, he simply would not do it. Your logic is similar. In the Gospel of Matthew 4:1-4, Satan says to Jesus, if you really are the Son of God, you could turn these stones inro bread. Jesus does not ao, not because he wasn't really hubgry (he was, he was fasting for 40 days) nor because he couldn't (as he demonstrated by turning water into wine), but because he chose not to. He chose ro use his powers to further God's purpose, not to meet his personal desires. Bu simply because Jesus chose not to use his powers for his own desires, did not make him any less the Son of God, or was denyig his.power and ability.

[Mayer]

This thread have been very mind opening. I didn't know certain Christian sects defied gods power so openly. It appears that there are those that deny omnipotence of god to make Jesus' non-sacrifice a sacrifice. It was useful to establish collective guilt for all Christians as well. Thank you basics for enlightening us on these.

Non-Sacrifice... the gruesome torture of crucification. Jesus sacrificed his life and dignity for a undeserving world of sinners.
What did Muhammad sacrifice? After conquering Arabia and successfully converting everyone to Islam, he catched a fever and died anticlimactically.

[basics]

This thread have been very mind opening. I didn't know certain Christian sects defied gods power so openly. It appears that there are those that deny omnipotence of god to make Jesus' non-sacrifice a sacrifice. It was useful to establish collective guilt for all Christians as well. Thank you basics for enlightening us on these.

PointOfViewGun,

All mankind fell under the curse of sin and death at the fall of Adam and Eve so all being guilty one can say that it is collective even to Muslims. Does a Muslim not require the mercy of God and if so for what? Even if it only took good works not one person could qualify for mercy, why? Because blood is the price laid down for sin and all are guilty of sin, so, can a sinner's blood gain entry to heaven? No, why? Because even the blood which is the life of any living being is tainted by sin and so can't qualify. That's the result of disobedience as well as disbelief which you and all the world still fall for. You actually think that you can persuade God to believe you when you in turn will not be persuaded by God. So, the "seed" Jesus Christ came into the world as a man to be the substitute for all them that His blood would save by His actions on a cross just as was predicted by God and His prophets. Alas, that doesn't open your mind at all, rather the opposite, and so your own condemnation remains on you and will do so until that great day when you have to bow the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, which by then is too late for you.