I Am Enjoying Being A Muslim

I respectfully disagree. Read [John 16:12-15].

Sure. I will. The Book of John... the book that clearly lays out who is the Word... and that Jesus was God incarnate, Son of God, the Savior. Will do... I'll look it up. I've read the book

To summarize... it's too late and I'm too tired. You can respectfully disagree, but it won't matter... Mohammed wasn't a prophet, and salvation comes from Jesus Christ. Everything else.... isn't.

@Djce45: The verses I mentioned indicate that a prophet was coming after Jesus.

No, they don't. That refers to the Holy Spirit - the third person of the Trinity, which has guided all the writers of the Bible, will guide the ones to follow, and afterwards will interpret the Gospel in the present. It most certainly doesn't refer to someone who came and so changed the meaning and the words of scripture as to make it mean something else. Islam changes the path of salvation, to something that fails to recognize who God is, and the Plan He put in place. Islam regards Jesus as a great prophet, but not as the Son of God, God Incarnate. That same book of John you referred to could not be more clear.

A few years later, the last scriptures are written. Read Revelations 22:18 and onward, that rules out any further revelations.

@Djce45: [John 16:7]
[quote]"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; [b]for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you[/b]; but if I go, I will send Him to you."[/quote]
The Holy Spirit was already there when Jesus was on earth. This verse can never be interpreted for the Holy Spirit.

[John 16:12-13]
[quote]“[b]I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.[/b] When the Spirit of truth comes, [b]he[/b] will guide you into all the truth, for [b]he[/b] will not speak on his own authority, but whatever [b]he[/b] hears [b]he[/b] will speak, and [b]he[/b] will declare to you the things that are to come."[/quote]
It's very clear from this verse that it refers to a man (human being) who will come after Jesus and will bring new revelation.

Anyways ..
It's interesting how the later the Gospel is the holiest Jesus becomes. For instance, in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is referred to as son of man, he called God 'my Lord', and he was praying to God to save him on the cross. Then later on, in Gospel of John, he becomes son of God, he called God 'my Father' and was happily willing to die on the cross.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not change the concept of Salvation, instead, he brought it back to its original belief. The one who changed it is Paul.

Of course it was the Holy Spirit that was referred to the verse of John, and that the Holy Spirit was already there in no way changes the meaning the verse.

Mark was written first... a bit short, very cut up. Matthew to some extent expands on it. Luke provides a different perspective... and John reinforces it. That's a false indicator you are referring to. Paul didn't change the concept of Salvation... that was designed from the first few chapters of Genesis. The Son of Man is the Son of God, and this references early discussions from the Old Testament.

Mohammad isn't a prophet and he attempted to change the word of God. I can't imagine (and don't want to) the fate that awaits him, unless of course... he recognized Jesus on his way up. Then... and only then.

@Djce45: Exactly, the later the gospel is.. the more additions we find, and this shouldn't be the case. It seems that the author of the book of John was adding his own interpretations to fit the concept of the trinity.

I respectfully disagree, Paul came up with whole new concept of God that was never known in previous scriptures. Otherwise, why didn't the Jews believe in the trinity if this is what the old testament teaches? Plus, there are Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him).

Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a prophet of God, and his coming was predicted in previous scriptures. Islam teaches the true monotheism and the original concept of salvation.

Not sure why you think the Gospels should not add to each other. In fact, what makes the Bible so perfect is that Scripture interprets Scripture.
You can say that about any book written after another one, it simply isn't true. Think of the Gospels as the same story but slightly different points of view, details. After all it was said that much was done that is not written.

Saying that Christians have differences is so what? People have differences. Jews knew about the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit, but they hadn't put it together into the Trinity until Jesus came along. It's a common historical misunderstanding, but most Jews converted. Today's jews are dependents of those who didn't and developed Judaism in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. But any legit demographic study of the first christian centuries will show that most converted.

Islam has only one purpose... to misdirect the people away from God and from the Savior, but providing an alternative which to sinful hearts appear plausible. That mankind's actions determines where one is saved or not. That's not the christian story.

@Djce45: I understand. But the Bible shouldn't be just like any book, or any sequence books. It supposed to be a revelation from God, so the core message should be clear from the very beginning, and this is not the case with the Gospels. For instance, it's only in the book of John we see that Jesus called "the only son of God", this is not found in the previous Gospels. If this belief was true, then it should have been written in all Gospels from the beginning.

The concept of trinity developed over time. It started with Paul. The Holy Spirit is the Angel Gabriel, who used to convey the message of God to prophets. This is the original belief (not historical misunderstanding), it's the belief of Jews and Muslims. It's later on that Paul made it a part of the trinity.

The original concept of salvation gathers sincere belief with good deeds. This is called True Love. How can we claim to love God, then our actions are full of disobedience? However, we don't determine our destiny by actions only, it has to be combined with true belief. Plus, through our good deeds we seek God's mercy, and only through His mercy will be saved and enter Paradise.

You will never be misdirected away from God, if you pray and bow down to your Maker throughout the day. Every day.

That is all very well and good, but you are presuming coherence in your argument that isn't there. The current explanation of the Trinity may have only developed after the apostles, but it has existed from the dawn of time. As for the Gospels, they are very consistent, they interpret each other.
But all that is just intellectual differences, that don't add up on Judgment Day. The concept of Salvation is laid out in the first chapters of Genesis, when God tells mankind what will happen - Salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. It is not earned - in any way. That is the fundamental difference between Christianity and every other religion. It's also the marker for letting one know that the Koran isn't true. It reverts to a balance sheet view of salvation - which God clearly rejects.

@Djce45: There are no historical evidence to support your claim. The concept of trinity only came later on through Paul. The concept of salvation, according to Jesus (peace be upon him) is to believe and to keep the commandments.

[Matthew 19:17]
[quote]"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."[/quote]

He didn't say, believe I will die for your sins.

Ah yeah, He says that several times throughout the Gospels. You should know that you can't pull out single verses without the context. Maybe the Koran you can, but not the Bible.

Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God, God in the flesh. That the Koran denies it pretty much rules it out as a true revelation of God (and of course, that in the final book further revelations are also ruled out).

@Djce45: I understand your emotions, but you didn't provide any proofs to support your claims. There's no place in the Bible where Jesus clearly claimed be god, nor he was sent to die for your sins. If there's one thing that Jesus kept on repeating is to believe in our Lord and his Lord and to keep the commandments.

My emotions play no part. Have you actually read the Gospels? Your claim is inaccurate.

The entire first chapter of John refers to Jesus as the Word of God, who is God. Please don't be embarrassing as say that this is not Jesus being referred to - this is understood. No actual scholar would argue otherwise.

John 3:16-19 clearly present the mission of the Son of God, Jesus, and that His sacrifice brings salvation to those who believe in him.
Other verses in which Jesus proclaims His existence in a way that is Divine: John 8:58, John 10:28-30 - Jesus proclaims His own authority to give eternal life, and safeguard all those God the Father gave to Him. John 11:25 "Jesus said to her, "I and the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die."

Couldn't be more plain than that - and those words are just from the first 11 chapters of John. There are others in the rest of John, and in the other Gospels. I forget which verse, but He also claims that the prophecy of the Messiah, a divine position, was fulfilled in Him, while reading in the synagogue.

This means that Paul was correct. Either Jesus was the greatest deceiver of all time, or He is God Incarnate, the divine Son of God, our Lord and Savior.

That's your choice Ms. Madeleine.
The Koran, by comparison, essentially is a book of rules by which if someone follows them they can go to heaven. Like every other religion - but not God's standard. Though it's throughout the Gospels, and the Psalms as well, no one can earn salvation, which is why it comes only through Christ.

@Djce45: This is exactly what I explained earlier, the divinity of Jesus had developed over time; the later the Gospel is, the more "divine" qualities have been given to Jesus. All of the verses you quoted were from the book of John, which came no surprise to me. I respectfully challenge you to bring similar verses from the Gospel of Mark.

Of course, both of us has a free choice to accept certain beliefs. I don't criticise someone for thier choices. However, to comment on what you said, isn't God the One who created us? Didn't God know our nature as sinners? Why was he seemed so surprised that we sin, then later on decided to "sacrifice his so for us". This idea doesn't make sense to me.

The Quran is not a book of rules, but a book of guidance. We believe that everything that God commands us to do is for our own benefit, and everything we're commanded to avoid is originally harmful for us. God did put us in this world to test us.. but also to purify us, so we would return to Him with sound hearts. And only a purified soul will enter Paradise. We don't earn Paradise based on our deeds.. but we do good deeds to earn God's mercy.. and only through God's mercy we will enter Paradise.

What is the differance between a believer and a non-believer if all will act the same, live by the same values?

God is The Most Merciful. He doesn't need to shed blood to forgive sins. Sincere repentance is enough. And that's a true Loving God.

Your explanation doesn't follow, and doesn't support your point. Jesus' divinity is mentioned from the start... and is heavily referenced in the Old Testament, especially now that we know the end of the story. Also, no... God wasn't surprised. He created us... and he wasn't surprised by sin. But are you aware of what the purpose of Creation is? It's to reveal God in all His characteristics. So you see Free will... but also love, justice, righteousness, and even rightful wrath.
... At least we agree on what we disagree on. You say we do good deeds to earn God's mercy. However, that is not true and the Bible ... I believe in some of the longer epistles points that out.
You can always choose to believe that Jesus' divinity was made up later on, over time, and apparently you do. But the evidence doesn't support that thesis. The great thing about Christ's first coming is that fulfills the all the promises, and explains all the questions from before. God's plan for salvation culminates on the cross.
I wish I could say that those who are sincere in their trust in God, are all saved. I still harbor a hope that that is true - but the Bible doesn't leave that option, and it is consistent on this issue, from start to finish.
There should be a difference between believers, we can agree on that. A christian by definition is a new person, who's heart has been changed, justified (by Christ) but not yet sanctified (that's in the next life). But he or she doesn't earn salvation, and his good works outside of his or her faith are not accepted.

@Djce45: I agree. God created us to reveal His attributes. And one of God's attributes is Forgiveness. Thus, God created human beings and gave them free will to sin, so He would Forgive them. This also shows God's Mercy and Love towards His creation.

You mentioned that Jesus' divinity was "heavily referenced in the Old Testament", if this was the case, then why did people only recognized this after his departure from earth? Paul himself said that without the resurrection, there's no Christianity. Therefore, people had to wait until Jesus dies, then resurrected to learn that he was god? Plus, even though the story of resurrection is pretty problematic, but even if it was true, only few people have "witnessed it". So the question is,, why did God choose this complicated way to teach people the concept of salvation? If god really wanted to save human beings from the burden of sin, it should have been done publicly with more direct and clear statements.

The Gospels are not the earliest sources about Jesus, and the Gospel of John was written at the end of the 1st century. They are not solid reliable sources (with due respect to you and to all Christians) of who Jesus really was. I explained previously that the newer the Gospel is, the more divine attributes were given to Jesus (peace be upon him). He is more of a human being in the Gospel of Mark, but a lord and son of god in the Gospel of John. You don't seem to find this fact a problem, but knowing that Matthew, Luck took Mark as their source of information to write their Gospels, then John came along and took the earliest three as his sources, makes it clear that there have been multiple changes and additions to their stories. Do you find this reliable?

Another question: If god really wanted to save the world because they love us all, why are we required to believe that Jesus died for our sins? I, myself don't believe in it, will I be saved? According to Christianity, no. Then where is the justice in that? Why am I required to believe in an event that I haven't witnessed?

I believe that God is Just. In true concept of salvation is someone has to earn it. Now, I am in control of my actions, if I disobey, it's my choice. God will never send someone to hell unjustly.

On your first point. We are agreed.

On your second point - you fail to recognize that Jesus was readily referenced to in the Old Testament - all the way from the first few chapters of Genesis, though the Prophets, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the lesser prophets and so on. But you have a very common misconception - first, that He wasn't recognized as God incarnate at the time of his physical ministry. Certainly He was by some, but His ministry was timed with a particular period in Jewish history when they were devolving into inaccurate understanding of God's Word (after all, a good part of the Gospel is Jesus re-directing the focus for the Pharisees). So you are depending on an interpretation that heavily ignores both the Old Testament, and the Gospels.

On your third point - that the divinity of Jesus comes only later - is a common and inaccurate telling of what the Gospels say. The Jesus of Mark is God incarnate - yes, it's the first and briefest Gospel - but that doesn't imply that Jesus is not divine. Each Gospel builds on the previous one to a degree. A quick review of the first chapter of Mark should dispel this notion, and in the 2nd Chapter Jesus, the Son of Man (another term for God Incarnate) is revealed also as the Lord of the Sabbath. That's God.

On your fourth point. Yes...that is the crux of the matter. God wants us to believe on faith, but it's an informed faith, with the preponderance of evidence. It's still faith. The reason one needs to believe in Christ to be saved - is because no one is "good" by current standards. That's the misconception. It fails to understand the gravity of sin to a Holy God. You can't earn your salvation, that's why Christ had to die for your sins, to defeat death and damnation once and for all. Any human thinking they are good enough (and we are all guilty of that) is a form of human arrogance, another consequence of the Fall.

That's why it is said that Christians don't receive justice (cause we're no better), but we instead receive mercy - a gift from God. We do have to take the step to believe. I won't get into whether you (or anyone else) or any other religion gets saved. God may have an option for you before judgment - but that is a dangerous path to go on (and weaker christians get on it always, but be wary of them, they're nice but not good for you) because the Bible does not allow that option. Romans pretty much rules it out. Could I be wrong? possibly? Many christians are on many things (myself included), but that's a dangerous thing to depend on - because it is the exact opposite of what God's entire plan of salvation is based on. So it's not that Christians only are saved - it's that only those who acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior.

Your last point. True, but read above. God's justice isn't man's justice.

@Djce45: I respect that you have your own interpretation of the text, but so far, you haven't bring me any quotes to support your arguments.

My point, regarding salvation, was if someone to be saved according to their beliefs and deeds, then it makes sense that some would be saved, and some would be sent to hell, because it is all based on the quality of their hearts and deeds. But, if god would sacrifice someone to "save humanity", it should be done for all.. not just few. Especially that the verse all Christians would use to explain salvation is [John 3:16] that begins with "For God so loved [b]the world[/b] .." NOT just the believers. This is a clear cut contradiction. I am sorry to say that.

Read the whole verse... it's clearly not a contradiction.
I have provided you entire chapters... so yes, the evidence is there. You can do the research if you like .. it's all there.
Next, who are you (or I or we) to decide how many God should redeem with his sacrifice?

Finally, I got your point, but this whole discussion has been how the premise is wrong. You are not saved on your deeds and beliefs, and as a sinner you can't be saved that way (that's where every other religion that even addresses that issue gets it wrong). You are saved by only one attribute, and that is depending on Jesus Christ - and the verses you mentioned - and the two or three follow-on verses, clearly state that.

@Djce45: I read the whole verse, and it also indicates another contradiction.
[quote]"For God so loved the world that he gave [b]his one and only Son[/b], that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."[/quote]

According to the Bible, Jesus is not the only one who was called "son of God". May were given this title.. such as, Adam and David.

Read verse 17 and 18 as well.
If you read the whole verse then you know there is no contradiction. Read verse 17 and 18 as well... 18 pretty much rules out the salvation on merits you have espoused, however elegantly.

Jesus is the only Son of God (and Son of Man.. and so on..). The rest of us are only "sons"... little "s." According to the Bible, as you explained.

@Djce45: The next verses don't add anything new. It still problematic for me. And who determines the kind of son is Jesus and the rest? What are the original words for both translations? Plus, the Bible doesn't determine how many persons that make the trinity. There's no verse that says that there are only three persons. Therefore, how do you know for sure?

Verse 18 clearly states that those who do not believe aren't saved. Not sure where you are going with the son is Jesus thing - that's the point of the Bible... leading up to the culminating events in God's plan for salvation, and that points to Jesus' work on the Cross. He's referred to as divine, as a part of God (trinity), he's the Son of God. I'm not knowledgeable of the original translations, but I know people who are. There may be no verse that says there are three persons, but the Bible is intended to lay out God's word, so the Trinity is there and is deduced from it. All three persons of the Trinity are described with their given characteristics - that's how we know who they are.