Christians, if you believe Paul, why don't you

[scotter]

Christians, if you believe Paul of Tarsus, why don’t you believe Muhammad?

 

Prop. 1: You are not a Muslim because you don’t believe Muhammad’s experience, that he was guided by the angel Gabriel in transcribing the Quran to him.

 

Prop. 2: Although you believe Jesus/the Gospels, considering that New Testament largely consists of Paul’s Epistles, why do you believe in Paul’s writings? Why do you believe in Paul’s experience of seeing Jesus’s apparition and thus he converted from a Pharisee to a Christian?

 

Prop. 3: See Prop. 1--- you don’t believe Muhammad’s Quran because it differs from the Bible’s teachings e.g. Jesus in Islam is a prophet, not the Begotten Son of God, not God. No Trinity. You can only choose one.

 

Prop. 4: Quran’s teachings are generally positively providing readers the knowledge of God, to love God, morality and virtue guideline. But because it is different from the Bible’s teachings in certain doctrines, you can only choose one, you choose Christianity.

 

Prop. 5: Jesus said he came to preserve the Laws. Judaism’s Shema he cited also [Jesus was a Jew too]: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is your God, and the Lord is One.’ Jesus himself went through circumcision when he was a baby.

 

He did not mean to found a new religion, instead his and his direct disciples Peter, James’,…..religiously speaking, was another Judaism sect at the time which recognized Jesus as the Messiah. They still observed Judaism Laws. [sarcastically, the remnants of Peter and James’ stream, the Ebionites, were declared heresy by the Church at that time.]

 

Peter, James who lived and dined with Jesus, did not propose in their letters to break off the Judaism Covenant; but Paul, who merely had an alleged personal experience, in his letters proposed to break off Judaism Laws e.g. circumcision…..different from the teachings of Jesus who had come to preserve the Laws. [this is one of my Christianity puzzles, although this is not the center point of my question].

 

Prop. 6: Basically Paul’s letters were preaching moral and virtue things e.g. Love is this, Love is that, Love is so this and that…..they are remarkably beautiful. BUT, his letters contain ideas that directly contradict Jesus’s teachings.

 

To reiterate from Prop. 4, basically the Holy Book of Islam Quran was teaching moral and virtue, but there are contents that directly contradict Christian doctrines.

 

Coming down to this, I hope you have captured my point. Another way to have asked the topic question is: if you don’t believe Muhammad, why do you believe Paul?

 

What’s the difference between Muhammad’s and Paul’s conversion experiences then? What is your reasoning believing Paul and his writings and not Muhammad and his writings?

 

I am not asking the question as if I were a Muslim challenging you, I ask as a 3rd party wanting to find out what are your criteria that you believe Paul and not Muhammad…..even if you answer simply breaks down to a matter of personal faith, even if you answer is: “I have faith in Paul’s conversion experience, I believe Jesus appeared to him, I believe Holy Spirit was with Paul when he was writing the letters. I don’t believe Gabriel appeared to Muhammad.” I have no further buts and stills for this thread.

 

I look forward to Christian members’ reply [From Kay’s suggestions. Thanks Kay.]

[Totallyatpeace]

I do wish you had broken this down into a few different threads.

 

But I want to respond to this:

 

Prop. 5: Jesus said he came to preserve the Laws. Judaism’s Shema he cited also [Jesus was a Jew too]: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is your God, and the Lord is One.’ Jesus himself went through circumcision when he was a baby.

 

He didn't come to preserve the laws, he came to fulfill them. Circumcision was also tradition and still is today.

[Guest Son of Belial]

He didn't come to preserve the laws, he came to fulfill them. Circumsicion was also tradition and still is today.

 

Before Paul, circumsicion was a law. Paul said it was not necessary. How is this "fulfilling" a law as opposed to doing AWAY with a law?

 

Please explain how getting rid of circumsicion, food purity laws, and so on is "fulfilling" the law?

[Totallyatpeace]

Jesus, not Paul.

[Philosopher Dave]

Apparently christianity has a grave misunderstanding....christianity vs. paulinity

 

In Matthew 5 Jesus says the following....17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

 

18"For truly I say to you,until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Although mainstream fundies have your understanding many other sects don't i.e.  Messianic Jews, Church of God,etc. believe the laws are still intact. If fulfill meant what mainstream teaches Matt 5:17 would read "I came not to abolish but to abolish!" makes zero sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, you might want to look at the different words that are translated INTO english as the word "abolish". Put simply, the word utilized in the Koine Greek for Matthew 5 as Jesus' is different than that used, say, for Paul in Ephesians 2:15. They are not exclusive. For Paul, the Law is not DESTROYED, but rather set aside to creat a new living way through Christ...as Romans 10:4 states.

 

(And don't give me the standard line "...well God shouldn't have made it that difficult to decipher") Get a Koine Greek dictionary and interlinear and look it up.

[Totallyatpeace]

Actually, you might want to look at the different words that are translated INTO english as the word "abolish".  Put simply, the word utilized in the Koine Greek for Matthew 5 as Jesus' is different than that used, say, for Paul in Ephesians 2:15.  They are not exclusive.  For Paul, the Law is not DESTROYED, but rather set aside to creat a new living way through Christ...as Romans 10:4 states.

 

(And don't give me the standard line "...well God shouldn't have made it that difficult to decipher")  Get a Koine Greek dictionary and interlinear and look it up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great post, Dave.

 

The following from a friend of mine explains it well.....

 

Paul was not summing the commandments – Jesus was. Jesus was asked in

 

Matthew 22:36

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"

which He answered. Summing them up into two.

 

Paul was teaching how to live like Christian.

 

Romans 13:8-10

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

 

Did Paul name all the commandments? No.

 

He summarized the ones that go into 'love thy neighbor....". Paul didn't mention 'no graven images... etc" which belong in 'Love the Lord thy God..."

[Vixentrox]

Thats all well and good. Still misses the point of the thread. Why belive in Paul and not Mohammed?

[Totallyatpeace]

Because as a Christian I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Paul is part of the Bible. Mohammed is not.

 

How's that for a simple answer?

[Philosopher Dave]

Christians, if you believe Paul of Tarsus, why don’t you believe Muhammad?

 

Prop. 1: You are not a Muslim because you don’t believe Muhammad’s experience, that he was guided by the angel Gabriel in transcribing the Quran to him.

 

Prop. 2: Although you believe Jesus/the Gospels, considering that New Testament largely consists of Paul’s Epistles, why do you believe in Paul’s writings? Why do you believe in Paul’s experience of seeing Jesus’s apparition and thus he converted from a Pharisee to a Christian?

 

Prop. 3: See Prop. 1--- you don’t believe Muhammad’s Quran because it differs from the Bible’s teachings e.g. Jesus in Islam is a prophet, not the Begotten Son of God, not God. No Trinity. You can only choose one.

 

Prop. 4: Quran’s teachings are generally positively providing readers the knowledge of God, to love God, morality and virtue guideline. But because it is different from the Bible’s teachings in certain doctrines, you can only choose one, you choose Christianity.

 

Prop. 5: Jesus said he came to preserve the Laws. Judaism’s Shema he cited also [Jesus was a Jew too]: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is your God, and the Lord is One.’ Jesus himself went through circumcision when he was a baby.

 

He did not mean to found a new religion, instead his and his direct disciples Peter, James’,…..religiously speaking, was another Judaism sect at the time which recognized Jesus as the Messiah. They still observed Judaism Laws. [sarcastically, the remnants of Peter and James’ stream, the Ebionites, were declared heresy by the Church at that time.]

 

Peter, James who lived and dined with Jesus, did not propose in their letters to break off the Judaism Covenant; but Paul, who merely had an alleged personal experience, in his letters proposed to break off Judaism Laws e.g. circumcision…..different from the teachings of Jesus who had come to preserve the Laws. [this is one of my Christianity puzzles, although this is not the center point of my question].

 

Prop. 6: Basically Paul’s letters were preaching moral and virtue things e.g. Love is this, Love is that, Love is so this and that…..they are remarkably beautiful. BUT, his letters contain ideas that directly contradict Jesus’s teachings.

 

To reiterate from Prop. 4, basically the Holy Book of Islam Quran was teaching moral and virtue, but there are contents that directly contradict Christian doctrines.

 

Coming down to this, I hope you have captured my point. Another way to have asked the topic question is: if you don’t believe Muhammad, why do you believe Paul?

 

What’s the difference between Muhammad’s and Paul’s conversion experiences then? What is your reasoning believing Paul and his writings and not Muhammad and his writings?

 

I am not asking the question as if I were a Muslim challenging you, I ask as a 3rd party wanting to find out what are your criteria that you believe Paul and not Muhammad…..even if you answer simply breaks down to a matter of personal faith, even if you answer is: “I have faith in Paul’s conversion experience, I believe Jesus appeared to him, I believe Holy Spirit was with Paul when he was writing the letters. I don’t believe Gabriel appeared to Muhammad.” I have no further buts and stills for this thread.

 

I look forward to Christian members’ reply [From Kay’s suggestions. Thanks Kay.]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok Scotter,

 

1. Mohammad used a sword to spread his "word", Paul used a book.

 

2. Paul attempts to tie in the legitimacy of his 'word' with the existing O.T. by showing that Jesus is the fullfillment of O.T. messianic expectations. (I'm not saying that he succeeded...I'm saying that is his intent) Mohammad does not, he simply asserts a trump card, the Qu'ran.

 

3. The Qu'ran is a collection of inchoate bits and pieces. Paul at least makes an attempt to ground his letters in rational response, not just rhetoric.

 

4. I find the Paul's letters more cognitively absorbing, the Qu'ran (which I've read) is much, much more laborious and seemingly irrelevant.

 

5. Paul's assertions about Jesus mesh with other Christian writing, Mohammad's deny foundational premises about Jesus' Messiahship.

 

There could be more, but that's all I've time for at the moment.

[scotter]

Thank you all for the answers and responses, from both sides of the camp, Christian apologists and non-Christian board members.

[triv]

1st issue: Paul vs. Mohammed

The reason I believe Paul and not Mohammed is because Paul was in a position to know what he was talking about and Mohammed was not. Paul was living and preaching around the time when there were people alive that were eyewitnesses of Jesus and agreed with Paul, such as the disciples whom he was previously persecuting. Mohammed (around 600 AD, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed) lived way after the time of Jesus and Paul. Any crazy lunatic can make up anything and the only thing that would stand against his herecy is the Bible. But by that time, a whole 600 years after Jesus, they could just say the Bible is wrong without peer review. This issue is that Paul's writings were falsifiable at the time and they weren't falsified by the people of that time. It actually lead to widespread christianity. Mohammed's teachings were not falsifiable so there is no way to prove them wrong at the time he wrote. He could get away with anything he wanted pretty much. Paul, on the other, did not have that option and his writings still stand.

 

2nd issue: Law, Paul, and Jesus

No, Jesus did not do away with the Law. When it says he fulfilled them it means that he has kept every moral Law. There were also all the other laws of the Old Testament like the dietary laws and cleanliness, and etc. These laws are commonly placed with the moral laws and lumped into the forever unchanged holy laws of God. Actually, these more specific laws were set aside for the the Jews to stand out as a nation in God's unfolding plan through time. When Jesus came along, he fulfilled those laws too, we are now clean in Christ, we dont need to sacrifice animals because Jesus was THE sacfrice, etc. The moral law is what transcends all of time, the ritual laws were just meant for Israel.

[Vixentrox]

Paul could be just as crazy as Mohammed, yet you don't take exception to that fact.

[triv]

Its easy to say that Paul might have been crazy too. Except for the fact that people at the time who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life didn't think so. In 2 Peter 1:16, Peter is refering to himself, the disciples, and Paul:

 

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

 

Notice there was a group of people that were eyewitnesses to a historical, empirical fact. If Mohammed had a crazy idea in his head, there were no eyewitnesses around to tell him he was wrong.

[Vixentrox]

Jim Jones, Aum Shin riko, Hal-bop comet folks....

 

The people that followed these wackos/cults didn't think thier leaders were crazy either did they?

[chefranden]

Because as a Christian I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Paul is part of the Bible. Mohammed is not.

 

How's that for a simple answer?

 

Accident of birth.

[chefranden]

Ok Scotter,

 

1.  Mohammad used a sword to spread his "word", Paul used a book.

 

2.  Paul attempts to tie in the legitimacy of his 'word' with the existing O.T. by showing that Jesus is the fullfillment of O.T. messianic expectations.  (I'm not saying that he succeeded...I'm saying that is his intent)  Mohammad does not, he simply asserts a trump card, the Qu'ran.

 

3.  The Qu'ran is a collection of inchoate bits and pieces.  Paul at least makes an attempt to ground his letters in rational response, not just rhetoric.

 

4.  I find the Paul's letters more cognitively absorbing, the Qu'ran (which I've read) is much, much more laborious and seemingly irrelevant.

 

5.  Paul's assertions about Jesus mesh with other Christian writing, Mohammad's deny foundational premises about Jesus' Messiahship.

 

There could be more, but that's all I've time for at the moment.

 

1. What Paul spread wasn't all that viable until Constantine’s sword came along.

 

2. Attempts -- Good word. Why shouldn't Mohammad give a new scripture? God told him that what was extant was incorrect. Why is Mohammad's epiphany less valid then Paul's? It is not; the choice for most is determined by accident of Birth.

 

3 & 4 I take these as your personal opinion and as such apply to the question.

 

5. You have judged Mohammad writings on the assumption that Jesus is the godman rather then judge them impartially and then choosing between them. That's fine but you ought to admit it. I'm sure that Muslims do the same in reverse.

 

Meshing with other Christian writings (if you mean the NT) is a given since the writings were chosen with that in mind.

[chefranden]

1st issue: Paul vs. Mohammed

  The reason I believe Paul and not Mohammed is because Paul was in a position to know what he was talking about and Mohammed was not.  Paul was living and preaching around the time when there were people alive that were eyewitnesses of Jesus and agreed with Paul, such as the disciples whom he was previously persecuting.  Mohammed (around 600 AD, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed) lived way after the time of Jesus and Paul.

This is irrelevant as Mohamed's revelation is directly from God. This is tantamount to saying the human witness is superior to God's witness.

 

Any crazy lunatic can make up anything and the only thing that would stand against his herecy is the Bible.  But by that time, a whole 600 years after Jesus, they could just say the Bible is wrong without peer review.  This issue is that Paul's writings were falsifiable at the time and they weren't falsified by the people of that time.  It actually lead to widespread christianity.  Mohammed's teachings were not falsifiable so there is no way to prove them wrong at the time he wrote.  He could get away with anything he wanted pretty much.  Paul, on the other, did not have that option and his writings still stand. 

Of course you are aware that the New Testament itself is a heresy of Judaism. And I'm sure you're aware that Paul's description of his epiphany could also be a description of a temporal lobe seizure. Are you not?

 

You're probably correct that Paul would have been disputed. It is evident from Paul's writings that many people disagreed with him. The so-called Judaizers being a case in point. This dissenting sect of Christians was possibly led by James and Peter who should've held greater authority than Paul. Having found Paul more to its liking, the church would not have preserved any dissenting writings even goes by the alleged disciples. You are aware I'm sure that the church has destroyed almost anything that contradicted it in the early days.

 

By casting doubt on Mohamed's epiphany you are also casting doubt on other epiphanies that cannot be "falsified" -- epiphanies like those experienced by Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the Revelation of John.

 

2nd issue: Law, Paul, and Jesus

No, Jesus did not do away with the Law.  When it says he fulfilled them it means that he has kept every moral Law.  There were also all the other laws of the Old Testament like the dietary laws and cleanliness, and etc.  These laws are commonly placed with the moral laws and lumped into the forever unchanged holy laws of God.  Actually, these more specific laws were set aside for the the Jews to stand out as a nation in God's unfolding plan through time.  When Jesus came along, he fulfilled those laws too, we are now clean in Christ, we dont need to sacrifice animals because Jesus was THE sacfrice, etc.  The moral law is what transcends all of time, the ritual laws were just meant for Israel.

 

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. 

You're interpreting Christ by Paul rather than interpreting Paul by Christ, which should be the correct order if Jesus is really God as you insist. Jesus does not say here that the law will not pass away until he dies and rises from the dead. He says it will not pass away until heaven and earth disappear. The last I've noticed Heaven and Earth are still here.

[Guest Son of Belial]

Why shouldn't Mohammad give a new scripture? God told him that what was extant was incorrect. Why is Mohammad's epiphany less valid then Paul's? It is not; the choice for most is determined by accident of Birth.

 

This is a very good point. Most Christians on here have even admitted that the words in the Bible have been changed, misinterpreted, edited, and so on. Even the fundamentast ones will admit it, although with much to say about their true interpretation, or how any seeming inconsistencies are misunderstandings and so on.

 

So we have Muhammed being given this new scripture by an angel. Now, the Bible was written by men, again, even apologists admit this, although they will say the men were possessed or guided. Muhammed wasn't just guided or inspired - he was dictated to by Gabriel!

 

How is Muhammed having the Quran dictated to him by Gabriel any sillier than Paul seeing a light from Heaven that did and didn't strike the others in his party blind?

[triv]

Accident of birth. I see it as blessing at birth. My girlfriend didn't have an accident of birth, she has recently and rationally become a Christian at the ripe age of 21. This wasn't something she was raised into. Her parents actually shut her out when she got baptized. Im just happy my parents raised me well and supported me.

 

to chefs post:

Yes God's witness would this accident be superior to human witness, but who's to say Mohammed's witness is directly from God besides Mohammed. His teachings do not line up with previous teachings (which is implying that the previous teachings are wrong obviously because his are right). Of course people disagreed with Paul, these people were not the ones who were witnesses to Christ and his ressurection. If Paul was lying, the disciples would not have liked him too much because they claim to be the chief witnesses to all the happenings. Mohammed only had his own word to back up his prophecies. I can say right now that God has sent me the prophecy that Mohammed was actually female and a lesbian. It was God's witness to me and more supreme to human witness like all the followers of Islam through the ages. You say I can't back up my claims? Well neither can Mohammed. And none of you now can refute my prophecy because you didn't live when he(she) lived. History of Mohammed is myth and my revelation is true.

 

Don't even start on OT prophets. That was a special position set up by God for a nation that had very close relationship with God who told them of his ways.

 

Peter and James having dissenting views than Paul? That is completely unfounded. Peter actually rebukes Judaizers.

 

And the church getting rid of opposing views, thats just common sense. If the ealry church leaders, such as Paul or Peter, came across material that opposed their "eyewitness" (which means they actually knew what happened) of course it would be disposed of. There would be no point in admonishing false writing. And the fact that you make statements about how the church was more favorable to Paul than to possible mysterious writings of Peter shows that you are just a conspiracy theorist with some magical tap into what really happened.

 

I didn't say the law passed away, so that is weird that you said I did.

 

And restating the question of why Paul should be regarded higher than Mohammed if they are both prophets is not an argument.

[Guest Son of Belial]

Yes God's witness would this accident be superior to human witness, but who's to say Mohammed's witness is directly from God besides Mohammed.

 

Who's to say Paul's witness is directly from God besides Paul? Mohammed has quite a number of people out there that say his witness is from God, as does Paul. But there are also people who worship the sun, moon, cows, etc. Are they correct too?

 

His teachings do not line up with previous teachings (which is implying that the previous teachings are wrong obviously because his are right).

 

A scientist once said the earth is round and orbits the sun. His teachings obviously do not line up with previous teachings(which is implying the previous teachings are wrong obviously because his are right). So what's your point?

 

Of course people disagreed with Paul, these people were not the ones who were witnesses to Christ and his ressurection. If Paul was lying, the disciples would not have liked him too much because they claim to be the chief witnesses to all the happenings.

 

As was pointed out previously, the Church picked and chose which scriptures to include. It's not rocket science to assume they left out the scriptures that said "Paul is a total moron."

 

Mohammed only had his own word to back up his prophecies.

 

And this is different from the Bible because?

 

I can say right now that God has sent me the prophecy that Mohammed was actually female and a lesbian. It was God's witness to me and more supreme to human witness like all the followers of Islam through the ages.

 

Hopefully you meant this as a joke, but if now, I have to ask: If God can come tell you that Mohammed was a lesbian, why couldn't God have told Mohammed that Jesus actually survived the crucifixion?

 

You say I can't back up my claims? Well neither can Mohammed

 

And neither can Paul.

 

And none of you now can refute my prophecy because you didn't live when he(she) lived. History of Mohammed is myth and my revelation is true.

 

You're changing gears here. Earlier you were talking about proving the truth... now you've switched over to typical Christian "proving a negative" argmentation. Are we supposed to prove that Mohammed's prophecies were true, or prove that Paul's weren't true? In that case, you can't prove that Mohammed's teaching are not true either. So we'd best stick to proving positives and not negatives.

[Ouroboros]

1st issue: Paul vs. Mohammed

  The reason I believe Paul and not Mohammed is because Paul was in a position to know what he was talking about and Mohammed was not.  Paul was living and preaching around the time when there were people alive that were eyewitnesses of Jesus and agreed with Paul, such as the disciples whom he was previously persecuting.  Mohammed (around 600 AD, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed) lived way after the time of Jesus and Paul.  Any crazy lunatic can make up anything and the only thing that would stand against his herecy is the Bible.  But by that time, a whole 600 years after Jesus, they could just say the Bible is wrong without peer review.  This issue is that Paul's writings were falsifiable at the time and they weren't falsified by the people of that time.  It actually lead to widespread christianity.  Mohammed's teachings were not falsifiable so there is no way to prove them wrong at the time he wrote.  He could get away with anything he wanted pretty much.  Paul, on the other, did not have that option and his writings still stand.

 

Actually Mohammed had first hand experience, because he was talking to God himself through and angel (Gabriel IIRC), which Paul didn’t do. Paul had one apparition and no first hand experience of Jesus, and then he did a lot of ad hoc teachings.

 

2nd issue: Law, Paul, and Jesus

No, Jesus did not do away with the Law.  When it says he fulfilled them it means that he has kept every moral Law.  There were also all the other laws of the Old Testament like the dietary laws and cleanliness, and etc.  These laws are commonly placed with the moral laws and lumped into the forever unchanged holy laws of God.  Actually, these more specific laws were set aside for the the Jews to stand out as a nation in God's unfolding plan through time.  When Jesus came along, he fulfilled those laws too, we are now clean in Christ, we dont need to sacrifice animals because Jesus was THE sacfrice, etc.  The moral law is what transcends all of time, the ritual laws were just meant for Israel.

 

Yet we circumcise babies in America, without being Jews.

[Ouroboros]

to chefs post:

Yes God's witness would this accident be superior to human witness, but who's to say Mohammed's witness is directly from God besides Mohammed.  His teachings do not line up with previous teachings (which is implying that the previous teachings are wrong obviously because his are right). 

 

Let me puke for a second before I start writing.... barf....

 

You are giving us the argument to why Paul is wrong too. Paul's teachings does NOT line up with everything in OT and the old law. Especially when you start saying that you don't have to follow the old laws from OT anymore, then it's a different message than the OT. You can't have the cake and eat it, mister.

 

Of course people disagreed with Paul, these people were not the ones who were witnesses to Christ and his ressurection.  If Paul was lying, the disciples would not have liked him too much because they claim to be the chief witnesses to all the happenings.

 

Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus. He never said that. His revelation of Jesus was an apparition, ghost image of light.

 

Mohammed only had his own word to back up his prophecies.  I can say right now that God has sent me the prophecy that Mohammed was actually female and a lesbian.

 

That's funny. Don't say it too loud, the Muslims will not like what you just said. If you've said it in Iran, you would be charged with blasphemy, and killed (stoned the old biblical fashion way.)

 

Anyway, we only have Paul's words to back up his statements too. What he said he did and didn't do is not recorded so much anywhere else.

 

It was God's witness to me and more supreme to human witness like all the followers of Islam through the ages.  You say I can't back up my claims?  Well neither can Mohammed.  And none of you now can refute my prophecy because you didn't live when he(she) lived.  History of Mohammed is myth and my revelation is true.

 

You're probably just being funny here, so I'll let it pass...

 

Don't even start on OT prophets.  That was a special position set up by God for a nation that had very close relationship with God who told them of his ways.

 

Peter and James having dissenting views than Paul?  That is completely unfounded.  Peter actually rebukes Judaizers.

 

Well, Paul and Peter had disagreements according to Paul.

 

And the church getting rid of opposing views, thats just common sense.  If the ealry church leaders, such as Paul or Peter, came across material that opposed their "eyewitness" (which means they actually knew what happened) of course it would be disposed of.  There would be no point in admonishing false writing.  And the fact that you make statements about how the church was more favorable to Paul than to possible mysterious writings of Peter shows that you are just a conspiracy theorist with some magical tap into what really happened.

 

The early church did get rid of the Gnosticisms. That is recorder history.

With the Dead Sea scrolls included holy books that belonged to the early Gnostic church.

And the mainstream church ridded itself from the “false” teachings.

[chefranden]

Accident of birth. I see it as blessing at birth. My girlfriend didn't have an accident of birth, she has recently and rationally become a Christian at the ripe age of 21. This wasn't something she was raised into. Her parents actually shut her out when she got baptized. Im just happy my parents raised me well and supported me. 

It was still an accident of birth for your girlfriend in that she was probably born in a Christian culture. If she was an Indonesian, chances are her conversion would have been to Muslim. Nevertheless, still most of the increase in any religion comes by way of population growth.

 

to chefs post:

Yes God's witness would this accident be superior to human witness, but who's to say Mohammed's witness is directly from God besides Mohammed. 

I'm sorry your sentence here makes little sense. Who's to say Isaiah's witness is directly from God save Isaiah?

 

His teachings do not line up with previous teachings (which is implying that the previous teachings are wrong obviously because his are right). 

What is the problem with that? If God wants to correct what is claimed to be revelation from the past, and the revelation from the past has become too distorted, God would have to start the revelation over. Just because Mohammed's teachings don't line up with the teachings you like, is no indication that it is not direct revelation from God, if such a thing could happen.

 

Of course people disagreed with Paul, these people were not the ones who were witnesses to Christ and his ressurection. If Paul was lying, the disciples would not have liked him too much because they claim to be the chief witnesses to all the happenings. 

How do you know? You have no way of knowing the names of all the people who disagreed with Paul, nor do you have a list of people who supposedly witnessed Christ to compare with a list of those who disagreed with Paul, except in the case of the disciples. You have no writings of the disciples extant, which is odd enough in itself, and gives you no evidence that the disciples either agreed or disagreed with Paul. Paul indicates that he disagreed with them. In addition you have Paul bragging that he had had little contact and still less influence from the alleged real disciples.

 

Please take the time to think about these things, before you just regurgitate what you have heard in Sunday school.

 

Mohammed only had his own word to back up his prophecies. I can say right now that God has sent me the prophecy that Mohammed was actually female and a lesbian. It was God's witness to me and more supreme to human witness like all the followers of Islam through the ages. You say I can't back up my claims? Well neither can Mohammed. And none of you now can refute my prophecy because you didn't live when he(she) lived. History of Mohammed is myth and my revelation is true. 

I presume you are being facetious here, for certainly you know that there is a great deal more evidence for the historicity of Mohammed than there is for Jesus. Again, if you claim that Mohamed's witness is not good enough, you cast doubt on profits from the Bible who make the same claim.

 

Don't even start on OT prophets. That was a special position set up by God for a nation that had very close relationship with God who told them of his ways.

This is a pretty sad case of my prophets are better than your prophets. There is no more evidence for the reality of this then for the reality of God's close relationship with the Arabs.

 

Peter and James having dissenting views than Paul? That is completely unfounded. Peter actually rebukes Judaizers. 

Perhaps then you do not remember that Paul rebuked Peter? The Judaizers were those Christians from Jerusalem who wish to compel the Gentile converts to Christianity to follow the law of Moses as they did. Who was the leader of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem? James. As for Acts 21:18 to 26: Acts is supposedly written by Luke a partisan of Paul's. Therefore it is not particularly trustworthy in the matter of Paul's dispute with the Judaizers. It is Paul's writings that establish the opening theology of the church and not the writings of any true apostle -- i.e. any eyewitness disciples, whose acts and writing are suspiciously absent from the New Testament. It is not likely that either of the epistles accredited to Peter by title were actually written by the actual disciple. ( Find arguments from both sides

at http://www.theopedia.com/First_Epistle_of_Peter)

 

And the church getting rid of opposing views, thats just common sense. If the ealry church leaders, such as Paul or Peter, came across material that opposed their "eyewitness" (which means they actually knew what happened) of course it would be disposed of. There would be no point in admonishing false writing. And the fact that you make statements about how the church was more favorable to Paul than to possible mysterious writings of Peter shows that you are just a conspiracy theorist with some magical tap into what really happened. 

I have no magical tap. Why did Jesus bother to train the 12 even going so far is to say he would establish the church upon Peter, having known from the beginning that he would establish the Church through Paul?

 

There is no need to throw out a falsehood, if the truth is actually available. 1+1 = 3 is obviously false in the light of the truth. However there is a need to cover up alternative views when you are struggling as one sect among many. If you are Protestant you should know what I mean.

 

 

I didn't say the law passed away, so that is weird that you said I did. 

 

Then I apologize for implying that you did.

 

And restating the question of why Paul should be regarded higher than Mohammed if they are both prophets is not an argument. 

I'm sorry this is a sentence fragment that makes no sense to me.

[zfunkman]

to chefs post:

.  I can say right now that God has sent me the prophecy that Mohammed was actually female and a lesbian.  It was God's witness to me and more supreme to human witness like all the followers of Islam through the ages.  You say I can't back up my claims?  Well neither can Mohammed.  And none of you now can refute my prophecy because you didn't live when he(she) lived.  History of Mohammed is myth and my revelation is true.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you do say this. You and everyone else will know you are a liar. I can also say what I want. I can say biblegod spoke to me and told me that Satan was the true author of the bible and that all who believe in it are going to burn in Hell for eternity.

[guacamole]

Christians, if you believe Paul of Tarsus, why don’t you believe Muhammad?

 

Prop. 1: You are not a Muslim because you don’t believe Muhammad’s experience, that he was guided by the angel Gabriel in transcribing the Quran to him.

 

Agreed. I don't believe Muhammad's experience that he was guided by the angel Gabriel in transcribing the Quran. This is because I trust scripture and Muhammad's revelation does not square with scripture.

 

Prop. 2: Although you believe Jesus/the Gospels, considering that New Testament largely consists of Paul’s Epistles, why do you believe in Paul’s writings? Why do you believe in Paul’s experience of seeing Jesus’s apparition and thus he converted from a Pharisee to a Christian?

 

It makes sense to me, considering the story of his life, and the tenor and quality of his teachings. His writings seem to me to line up with Christ as opposed to Muhammed's, whose do not.

 

Prop. 3: See Prop. 1--- you don’t believe Muhammad’s Quran because it differs from the Bible’s teachings e.g. Jesus in Islam is a prophet, not the Begotten Son of God, not God. No Trinity. You can only choose one.

 

Agreed, on account of my reply to prop.1 above.

 

Prop. 4: Quran’s teachings are generally positively providing readers the knowledge of God, to love God, morality and virtue guideline. But because it is different from the Bible’s teachings in certain doctrines, you can only choose one, you choose Christianity.

 

The Quran's veracity on moral matters is irelevant to me. If the text is also faulty on theological grounds, then I can reject it.

 

Prop. 5: Jesus said he came to preserve the Laws. Judaism’s Shema he cited also [Jesus was a Jew too]: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is your God, and the Lord is One.’ Jesus himself went through circumcision when he was a baby.

 

Not terribly relevant to me.

 

He did not mean to found a new religion, instead his and his direct disciples Peter, James’,…..religiously speaking, was another Judaism sect at the time which recognized Jesus as the Messiah. They still observed Judaism Laws. [sarcastically, the remnants of Peter and James’ stream, the Ebionites, were declared heresy by the Church at that time.]

 

I suppose in the strictest sense Jesus did not mean to found a religion at all. He came to do a work, and the religion grew out of the following of Christ. I think that if first century Judaism had accepted Christianity as a sect, Christians would still be identified with Judaism. I think the earliest converts identified with Judaism and that it was only after the earliest persecutions that they decided to identify elsewise.

 

I think it's erroneous to assert that James and Peter both still 'observed the law'. In some very key senses, they were just as transgressive of the law as Paul, in as much as Jesus was before them. Peter associated with gentiles, ate unclean food, and promulgated the teachings of Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice. For his part, James accepted the status of Jesus as Lord and Messiah, anathema to first century Judaism.

 

It's worth pointing out thought, then when you talk about "Judaism's Laws" it is worth clarifying which sect's interpretation of the law you're talking about. Do you mean the Saducees "Law", inclusive only of Torah? Do you mean Pharisaical "Law", with it's procession of prophets and the proverbial "hedge" added to the pursuit of the law? Do you mean the Samaritan law, with it's primitivist rejection of the refinements of the priesthood? Which?

 

Peter, James who lived and dined with Jesus, did not propose in their letters to break off the Judaism Covenant; but Paul, who merely had an alleged personal experience, in his letters proposed to break off Judaism Laws e.g. circumcision…..different from the teachings of Jesus who had come to preserve the Laws. [this is one of my Christianity puzzles, although this is not the center point of my question].

 

In my opinion that's erroneous as well, based simply on some of the observations I posted above, but also in light of the reading of Paul in which he isn't abrogating the law in as much as taking an extremely literalistic reading of it's limitations, i.e., the Law is the description of the covenant between the Israelites as a nation and God. In the covenental law, the dietary codes and circumcision are seen as symbols of the Israelites selection by God- it's literally something to set them apart from the nations that haven't been chosen.

 

When Paul refuses to force gentile Christians to be circumcised, he's in effect saying that gentiles don't have to become Jews in order to have a relationship to God through Christ. That is Gentiles don't have to partake of the covenental relationship between Jews and God- a relationship that isn't superceded by Christ by any means, but still active, it is gentiles whose state is changed and who become grafted into a right reltionship by Christ, not by merit of the covenant.

 

This is not radically different than the teachings of Rabbinic Judaism with respect to gentiles. Modern Jews do not see the Mosaic Covenant as binding on gentiles, but instead see the Noachic covenant as pertinent to those who aren't Israelites. Not unlike rabbinic Judaism, For Paul then the ethical teachings of the law are consistently valid, but the ritual and ethnic teachings are not. The gentile isn't at fault if he violates ritual law, but he is at fault if he violates ethical/moral law. The ethical/moral law becomes pre-eminent for the Christian.

 

Note that this is a continuing development of Christ's condemnation of "the hedge" of the Pharisees, the additional set of law and teaching that attempted to guarantee that the law would not be broken so that the covenantal promises would be made manifest. When Jesus talks about healing on the Sabbath or what comes out of you mouth making you unclean, he, like Paul and the other Apostles, and in fact like the revisions to the Law from the Prophets, is teaching that if you have the ritual obligations right but have the ethical obligations wrong you've still fallen short.

 

Prop. 6: Basically Paul’s letters were preaching moral and virtue things e.g. Love is this, Love is that, Love is so this and that…..they are remarkably beautiful. BUT, his letters contain ideas that directly contradict Jesus’s teachings.

 

I don't see anything in Paul that directly contradicts Jesus. Paul and Jesus both had their roots in the Pharisaical sect of Judaism. Paul's teaching on the Law for gentiles is a logical outgrowth of the interpretation set down first by the Prophets, in whom the pharisees and rabbis germinate, and then in Jesus who develops the prophets further.

 

To reiterate from Prop. 4, basically the Holy Book of Islam Quran was teaching moral and virtue, but there are contents that directly contradict Christian doctrines.

 

Agreed.

 

Coming down to this, I hope you have captured my point. Another way to have asked the topic question is: if you don’t believe Muhammad, why do you believe Paul?

 

What’s the difference between Muhammad’s and Paul’s conversion experiences then? What is your reasoning believing Paul and his writings and not Muhammad and his writings?

 

I am not asking the question as if I were a Muslim challenging you, I ask as a 3rd party wanting to find out what are your criteria that you believe Paul and not Muhammad…..even if you answer simply breaks down to a matter of personal faith, even if you answer is: “I have faith in Paul’s conversion experience, I believe Jesus appeared to him, I believe Holy Spirit was with Paul when he was writing the letters. I don’t believe Gabriel appeared to Muhammad.” I have no further buts and stills for this thread.

 

I look forward to Christian members’ reply [From Kay’s suggestions. Thanks Kay.]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If Christianity is a twig off the prophets and Pharisees in the plant of Abrahamic religions, Islam is a whole other limb. There's a consistent internal logic to the development from the "Law" to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" to "This is the whole of the Law and the Prophets".

 

By comparison, in my admittedly limited opinion, Islam skips back over the developments that move ethical considerations to the forefront in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism and looks instead to the old ritual Law for it's inspiration and development. As I know it, and I could be wrong, Islam violates the spirit of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as you love yourself", and would find that characterizations of it as a summary statement of the Law by the Rabbis and Jesus to be anathema. I say this because of Islam's insistence on Law and ritual obligation in contrast to mercy and repentance. In that, I think that Islam has much more in common with primitive ritual Judaism than with either Rabbinic Judaism or Christianity. If there had been no prophets, no rabbis, no Jesus, and no apostles, then you might be able to better make the case that Islam is a universal covenant in contradistinction to a limited, localized one. However, given Islams universal scope, I find that it can't stand with with prophets, rabbis, Jesus and apostles.

 

Now you might want to argue that Islam is a different limb and that it is a legitimate development in its own right. The problem with that is that Muhammed doesn't assert that Islam is a parallel development, but a linear development. In my opinion that's wrong because even though Muhammed traces the lineage of Islam back through Jesus and the Prophets, he has very little in common with them, ethically, philosophically, and theologically.

 

fwiw

guac.