Oct 15, 2010 -- 5:55AM, BDboy wrote:

 Yes Islam is pretty close to Christianity [ Spiritually closest to Christians stated in the Qur'an as well ( Chapter 5:82-83)] with a slightly different "Concept of God". If you go by the Bible and what Jesus son of Mary spoke about, we are really close. Muslims object to what Paul introduced to Christianity and concept of God.

Some Christians have had issues with Paul, also. I feel that Paul has gotten a bum rap, not for what he wrote, but for the ways over the centuries in which he has been misunderstood and misused. That could be a whole 'nother thread. Nevertheless, Paul and his writings are an unquestioned part of the New Testament canon, and cannot be ignored.

Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

 You are right. What little I know about this Nicean council, both parties argued about it and Arians lost the debate and modern trinitarian point became "Official" in Christian world. Albeit both parties claimed to follow Jesus's teaching.

According to orthodox Christianity, what Nicea said is not something that "became" official, the Council officially made explicit what had been the teaching of the Church all along. Trinitarianism was not a new doctrine, but what had been true from the beginning and now was clarified so that no one could fall prey to that same error in future. Arius was found to have been in error from the outset.

Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

As I stated before ( As per teaching of Islam) Muhammad did not start a new religion. Rather he just completed God's revelation to humanity. All previous messengers of God ( Noah, David, Solomon, Joseph, Abraham, Moses...etc) were sent to certain tribes or nation. Muhammad was meant for humanity and he was the last messenger of God until the last day. Therefore, like previous messengers of God, Muhammad was a strict monotheist.

When you say "Mohammad did not start a new religion." You are making a faith statement. That is a perfectly legitimate expression of your faith. (Just as I am making a faith statement when I say, "Jesus is Lord" with all that statement implies.)

Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

Some Muslim theologians points to the fact that, people around Jesus mostly to spoke in Hebrew and Aramic but the "First Bible" was written in Greek [Not a native language of Palestine]. Therefore, maybe some teaching were translated/interpreted differently than intended. At the same time, I think our differences are fewer than differences you have among different denominations among Christians.

By the First Century A.D. Hebrew was largely replaced with Aramaic as the common language. Hebrew by that time (as it remains to this day) was the language of the synagogue. The Tanakh was in Hebrew, and the prayers were often in Hebrew, but you would have been surprised to hear it in the marketplace. The Jews of the diaspora mostly spoke Greek. Thus about 95 B.C. (I forget the exact date) a group of seventy Jewish scholars met in Alexandria and translated the Tanakh into Greek. Tradition says that they each did a translation, and then they compared them to come up with a consensus. Miraculously, all seventy were identical, which was taken as a sign from God that they had made a perfect translation. This translation is the Septuigent (from the Greek for 70). This is the text which was later used by Greek speaking Jews and later the Greek speaking Christians.

Since the time of Alexander the Great, Greek was the common language of the eastern Mediterranean. It may not have been the "native" language, but it was certainly widely known. This common language (koine Greek) was the language in which the New Testament was written.

Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

  

For your future classes you may use the following book if you needed an authentic "Islamic" point of view.

Abraham: The Friend of God

It was written by Dr. Jerald Dirks. Dr. Dirks holds B.A. and M.Div. degrees from Harvard University, M.A. and Psy.D. degrees from the University of Denver, and a Sessions Program Certificate from Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University. He is a formerly ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, and has been a practicing Muslim for over nine years. After retiring from the practice of clinical psychology.

Thank you for your suggestion. That might prove very useful.

Oct 23, 2010 -- 2:27PM, Xapisma wrote:

When you say "Mohammad did not start a new religion." You are making a faith statement. That is a perfectly legitimate expression of your faith. (Just as I am making a faith statement when I say, "Jesus is Lord" with all that statement implies.)

>>>>>>> Recently I had discussion on this topic. As I mentioned before it is not a faith statement rather historical fact. It is the same relationship that Christians have with Jewish people. Qur'an is very clear about it. Wanted to share some verses to shed more light on relationship we have with "People of scriptures".

Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.

[ Source: Al Qur'an 2:136]

"Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous."

(The Noble Quran, 3:113-114)

"Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

(The Noble Quran, 2:62)

"Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. "

(The Noble Quran, 2:112)

Peace.

BDboy, please forgive my absence from these boards. I had some minor surgery done about a month ago, and am still recovering.

Thank you for those Qur'anic references. I think they do help to illustrate a point. The Prophet never claimed to have started a new religion. But he brought a new revelation in the Qur'an. Jesus never claimed to have started a new religion either. "I come, not to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill it." Moses never claimed to start a new religion, but to reveal to the Hebrews in captivity in Egypt, the saving mercy of the God of their fathers "Who has heard their cry, and has come to deliver them."

We all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.

Although none of these prophets claimed to have started a new religion, the historic fact is that there are three separate (though related) religions, all of whom claim Abraham for our father.

Sep 29, 2010 -- 2:13PM, BDboy wrote:

This word is only important if you feel Jesus was "God in flesh" or "literally" Son of God. Otherwise all of us have "Spirit of God" within us and we appeared with permission and plan from God.

Bible talks about son of God in other places but "begotten" son of God is a different game altogether.

That's not right....

Jesus was present and a presence long before he was born of Mary's womb.  From before creation He was the Word.  That was a totally different presence than the Spirit of God.  The Word made appearances all through the OT.  He set Jacob's hip askew, for example.

Jesus BECAME FLESH through mary's womb.  But He existed before that.  BEGOTTEN would reflect that JEsus is IN GOD, before creation and exists both in and out of Him after.