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

[Skankboy]

Guacamole

 

Just want to be sure I've got this right. You don't believe the Koran because it doesn't agree w/the gospels. So, in essence, you don't believe one book written over a thousand years ago because it doesn't "jive" w/another book written over a thousand years ago?

 

Who's authority to do you default to? God or the authors of the bible? According to Islam, the Koran's source is God and was supposed to act as a correction and refinement of previous teachings that had gone astray. I understand how it's premises may seem to harken back to a more "primitive" judaism, but did you ever stop to think that may be the biggest indication it's correct? If the other "people of the books" were being misled, you would expect exactly that kind of a result in a document looking to "correct" those "mistakes".

 

Just a thought...

[guacamole]

Guacamole

 

Just want to be sure I've got this right.  You don't believe the Koran because it doesn't agree w/the gospels.  So, in essence, you don't believe one book written over a thousand years ago because it doesn't "jive" w/another book written over a thousand years ago?

 

In a sense, yes. I was more answering the question on why accept Paul versus Mohammed, looking at either as a development of a line of thought. In that regard I find that Mohammed is not consistent with what he proposes as his spiritual ancestors.

 

Who's authority to do you default to?

 

Ultimately? My own thoughts, like any person really.

 

  God or the authors of the bible?

 

In light of my above reply, by my own volition I subordinate myself to God/authors of the Bible. I don't disregard my own thoughts, after all they were given to me as the means to make my way in the world.

 

According to Islam, the Koran's source is God and was supposed to act as a correction and refinement of previous teachings that had gone astray.  I understand how it's premises may seem to harken back to a more "primitive" judaism, but did you ever stop to think that may be the biggest indication it's correct?  If the other "people of the books" were being misled, you would expect exactly that kind of a result in a document looking to "correct" those "mistakes".

 

Just a thought...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mostly I make that decision because Muhammed claims succession through the prophets and Christ but when you compare the the two groups (Islam and prophets/Christ) they can't logically stand together. If Muhammed was to disregard the prophets and Christ, if he was to deny them authority and recognition of being God's messengers, then he would be more acceptable to me, but he does not. In my opinion Muhammed is logically inconsistent with the Prophets and Christ.

 

Essentially the Muslim argument, sans any sort of corroborating evidence, is that the teaching is corrupt. Okay. Since it's a purely faith based position that doesn't hinge on evidence or argument. I won't discard a faith based position I hold, bolstered as best I can with the faculties I've been given, for one arbitrarily asserted.

 

fwiw

guac.

[chefranden]

Mostly I make that decision because Muhammed claims succession through the prophets and Christ but when you compare the the two groups (Islam and prophets/Christ) they can't logically stand together. If Muhammed was to disregard the prophets and Christ, if he was to deny them authority and recognition of being God's messengers, then he would be more acceptable to me, but he does not. In my opinion Muhammed is logically inconsistent with the Prophets and Christ.

 

The best answer yet.

 

Of course you are making the assumption that the Bible contains what God actually had the prophets say. Islam says the bible does not contain very much of what the prophets had tried to teach and therefore had to be replaced. I don't think that Mohamed ever claimed he was just writing another book of the Bible. I see no reason to hold your assumption over theirs.

 

In addition, I say that your preference of assumptions is an accident of birth.

[guacamole]

Of course you are making the assumption that the Bible contains what God actually had the prophets say. 

 

True.

 

Islam says the bible does not contain very much of what the prophets had tried to teach and therefore had to be replaced.  I don't think that Mohamed ever claimed he was just writing another book of the Bible.  I see no reason to hold your assumption over theirs.

 

Also true. In fact, I've no argument to sway you or them. I come just shy of admiting as much in my post and my answer to them is virtually identical to your answer to me: I won't discard a faith based position I hold, bolstered as best I can with the faculties I've been given, for one arbitrarily asserted.

 

My reasoning is not so much an attack on their position as it is an apologetic, a defense, for mine.

 

In addition, I say that your preference of assumptions is an accident of birth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. I would describe it as grace rather than accident, but your point stands. I don't deny it and I am grateful for it.

 

fwiw

guac.

[Ouroboros]

Guacamole,

 

At first when I started reading you comments I started to write responses etc, but realized that, hey, this guy is honest, I like that.

 

If I’ve understood you right, that is.

 

You've made your standpoint for what you believe, based totally on the opinion you have or assumptions you have made, and you know it, and you don't try to defend it with logic or rationalizations.

 

That’s what usually upsets people, that someone comes with an attitude that they have all the answers and the logical proofs for it.

 

But as a person you have to come to insight that belief in God is based solely on belief, and as soon as you try to prove God, God will disappear.

 

My hat goes off for you.

[guacamole]

Guacamole,

 

At first when I started reading you comments I started to write responses etc, but realized that, hey, this guy is honest, I like that.

 

If I’ve understood you right, that is.

 

You've made your standpoint for what you believe, based totally on the opinion you have or assumptions you have made, and you know it, and you don't try to defend it with logic or rationalizations.

 

That’s what usually upsets people, that someone comes with an attitude that they have all the answers and the logical proofs for it.

 

But as a person you have to come to insight that belief in God is based solely on belief, and as soon as you try to prove God, God will disappear.

 

My hat goes off for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thanks. I hope that I have some logic and reason to bolster my faith but when it comes down to it, that's what it is, faith.

 

Now if I could just keep from following the logic about the Babel Fish I'd be okay...

 

fwiw

guac.

[triv]

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?

 

You're implying with your example that everytime someone has a new teaching they are correct. Your scientist in the example was correct with his teaching, Mohammed was not, thats my point.

 

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."

 

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.

 

Chef provided a good example (2nd quote) for the first one. Yes the Church did pick what was put in the Bible and what wasn't. This is also a good example of what I already stated about being common sense to leave out bad writings.

 

Gnostic gospels - written 300 years or so after Jesus by writers using Jesus for their own good ex. Thomas took passages from scripture and added his name into them - such as something like " give unto the Lord and Thomas" Gnosticism was a cult that believed that you had to have some secret knowledge to be trully Christian. This resembles the fact that some of you claim that you KNOW that the church got rid of specific writings of Paul that they disagreed with, there is no way for you to know that.

Normal goepels - written from around 40 AD to no later than 70 AD by writers who were "eyewitnesses" (eyewitness means physically seeing and witnessing events, not visions or dreams that no one else saw like Mohammed)

 

 

The whole Mohammed lesbian wasn't really a joke, it was more of an example, it just happened to be the first thing that came to me that everyone would recognize as wrong.

 

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.

 

Exactly, anyone can say whatever they want and it doesn't mean that they are telling the truth. Mohammed could have done the same thing. Paul could have doen the same thing but the difference is that Paul did have accountability to his story because he lived at the same time as what he was writing about.

 

QUOTE

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.)

 

Good, that's the whole point of Paul being accountable for his writings. Christians would have competely rejected Paul and not cared for his writings if what he wrote about was not what they knew to be true of Jesus. This is interesting because the same people you guys claim completely disagreed with Paul and his teachings ended up putting them in the Bible. Did the later church realize that they gave Paul a hard time and decided to throw that stuff in there for no reason?

 

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

 

I want to bring this statement up again, you guys try and tell us Christians are picky on beliefs and meanings and what not.... You'll take some stuff thats recorded history as a given and other stuff that you disagree with as forgery.

 

Yet we circumcise babies in America, without being Jews.

 

Health reasons.

 

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

 

Are you OK?

 

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.

 

No list of people or any writings that disagreed with Paul, hmm, maybe people that knew what Paul was talking about did agree with him and didn't write anything. You're being selective again, if Jesus never existed because you guys claim there is no corroborative evidence then how come you ignore that reasoning when it comes to stuff like this. There are no witnesses that disagreed with Paul about Jesus hence there is no list of people that anyone can name or writings of people who knew who the real Jesus was and said that Paul was wrong.

 

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.

 

I'm trying to not make a case here with OT prophets because we're not talking about them, it's a discussion on Mohammed and Paul.

 

Guacamole,

 

At first when I started reading you comments I started to write responses etc, but realized that, hey, this guy is honest, I like that.

 

I think this needs this.

 

.... barf....

 

based totally on the opinion you have or assumptions you have made, and you know it, and you don't try to defend it with logic or rationalizations.

 

But as a person you have to come to insight that belief in God is based solely on belief, and as soon as you try to prove God, God will disappear.

 

Christianity is defended with logic and reasoning. Don't try to make me or guac out to be liberal or relativistic or agnostic. Don't force your own opinion on us as fact when you just said that it's all opinion anyways.

[triv]

ah crap, the quotes didnt work

[Ouroboros]

Gnostic gospels - written 300 years or so after Jesus by writers using Jesus for their own good ex.  Thomas took passages from scripture and added his name into them - such as something like " give unto the Lord and Thomas"  Gnosticism was a cult that believed that you had to have some secret knowledge to be trully Christian.  This resembles the fact that some of you claim that you KNOW that the church got rid of specific writings of Paul that they disagreed with, there is no way for you to know that.

Normal goepels - written from around 40 AD to no later than 70 AD by writers who were "eyewitnesses" (eyewitness means physically seeing and witnessing events, not visions or dreams that no one else saw like Mohammed)

 

The Gnostics existed in the first century, and the Gospel of Thomas is considered to be written between 50 CE and 140 CE, before the “Normal” Gospels, according to most scholars.

 

Christianity is defended with logic and reasoning.  Don't try to make me or guac out to be liberal or relativistic or agnostic.  Don't force your own opinion on us as fact when you just said that it's all opinion anyways.

 

No it’s not.

 

It is not logic to state 1+1+1 equals 3.

It is not logic to state “I Believe therefore he exists”.

It is not logic to state that the universe is only 6000 years old.

And much more…

 

We’re not trying to make you or Guac to change to anything. We are not liberal Christians here, nor relativistic or agnostic Christians. Some might be, but the site consists mostly of ex-Christians.

 

You came to our site to ask questions, but it so happens that it’s our site, and our rules. If you come with postulations that are untrue, we have the right to call your bluff and be in your face and tell you so.

 

Guac have presented a better attitude and open mind rhetoric that you have, Triv.

Guac has earned my respect, but so far, you have not.

 

On the other hand, I can only find one reason why you come to our site and beat your chest and argue the way you do, and that is that you have a searching heart. You have not found the truth yet, and you know it. Your mind can’t stop looking for the answers, because the answers you have are not enough. You are on your way to loose your faith and you’re fighting to catch some breath at the surface.

 

So I urge you to stay and debate, but try to do it without postulates and prima facie arguments.

[Guest Son of Belial]

You're implying with your example that everytime someone has a new teaching they are correct.  Your scientist in the example was correct with his teaching, Mohammed was not, thats my point.

Chef provided a good example (2nd quote) for the first one.  Yes the Church did pick what was put in the Bible and what wasn't.  This is also a good example of what I already stated about being common sense to leave out bad writings.

 

No, what I implied is that "older" does not necessarily mean "more correct."

 

Gnostic gospels - written 300 years or so after Jesus by writers using Jesus for their own good   ex.  Thomas took passages from scripture and added his name into them - such as something like " give unto the Lord and Thomas"  Gnosticism was a cult that believed that you had to have some secret knowledge to be trully Christian.  This resembles the fact that some of you claim that you KNOW that the church got rid of specific writings of Paul that they disagreed with, there is no way for you to know that.

 

Someone else got to this already, but the gnostic gospels are older. Not necessarily more correct, but...

 

Exactly, anyone can say whatever they want and it doesn't mean that they are telling the truth.  Mohammed could have done the same thing.  Paul could have doen the same thing but the difference is that Paul did have accountability to his story because he lived at the same time as what he was writing about.

 

It still comes down to the same thing though: two men who never met Jesus getting inspired by supernatural lights and voices.

 

Good, that's the whole point of Paul being accountable for his writings.  Christians would have competely rejected Paul and not cared for his writings if what he wrote about was not what they knew to be true of Jesus.  This is interesting because the same people you guys claim completely disagreed with Paul and his teachings ended up putting them in the Bible.  Did the later church realize that they gave Paul a hard time and decided to throw that stuff in there for no reason? 

 

It's not the same church necessarily. Do you really think the modern church actually descended from Peter? And as was already pointed out, there certainly were disagreements with Paul.

 

Re: circumcision: Health reasons.

 

For every study you can find claiming circumcision is healthy, I can find one that says it's unhealthy, harmful, and can cause both psychological damage as well as cancer. Why do many doctors now refuse to perform ciscumcision? Is it because we've become a big, evil Satanic-influenced society now?

[chefranden]

Good, that's the whole point of Paul being accountable for his writings. Christians would have competely rejected Paul and not cared for his writings if what he wrote about was not what they knew to be true of Jesus. This is interesting because the same people you guys claim completely disagreed with Paul and his teachings ended up putting them in the Bible. Did the later church realize that they gave Paul a hard time and decided to throw that stuff in there for no reason?

 

The point is that there is no evidence that Paul was accountable. There is evidence that others disagreed with him in his own writings. But we have no details! Why? Because, the details would be too embarrassing for the church to allow to be saved.

Why didn't any of the alleged disciples write anything? I'm guessing it was because they never existed. But if they did, why don't we hear from them? Kind of suspicious if you ask me. In addition there are no affidavits from any of those alleged eye witnesses attesting to Paul's accuracy. There isn't even a letter home, "Mom, Paul is ok -- looks like he knew Jesus like we knew Jesus."

 

The guys that disagreed with Paul would have been his contemporaries. The traditional Cannon came hundreds of years later. Sigh, you have read some church history -- haven't you?

[Ouroboros]

Why didn't any of the alleged disciples write anything?  I'm guessing it was because they never existed.  But if they did, why don't we hear from them?  Kind of suspicious if you ask me. 

 

Maybe Paul killed them! In the true holy spirit of acting on Gods command.

[duderonomy]

Guys...

I used to be SO convinced of the Pauline epistles that I still really get excited/hurt when I read these threads about Paul, the Big Guy.

I know that I don't understand everything, but I feel ashamed now that I so used Paul as 'my HERO'!

Instead of Peter, Paul, and John (what? You thought I was going to say Mary?);

how about common sence, comprimize, and spelling??

Bring my cloak, and esp. the parchments on your next trip...

Damn, I wish I still believed Paul,

Damn.

[Baggs]

Hi,

Just my personal experience, but correct me if I am wrong about what I have heard so far.

 

1 The Jews record that Jesus did die on the cross.

2 The Romans record that Jesus did die on the cross.

3 The Gospels record that Jesus did die on the cross.

4 The Muslims say that Jesus did NOT die on the cross.

 

I'm not saying this proves one or the other is wrong, I just consider it to have a heavier weight when even 2 of your past persecuters corroborate your own statements.

 

Peace and God Bless.

[Ouroboros]

Hi,

Just my personal experience, but correct me if I am wrong about what I have heard so far.

 

1 The Jews record that Jesus did die on the cross.

2 The Romans record that Jesus did die on the cross.

3 The Gospels record that Jesus did die on the cross.

4 The Muslims  say that Jesus did NOT die on the cross.

 

I'm not saying this proves one or the other is wrong, I just consider it to have a heavier weight when even 2 of your past persecuters corroborate your own statements.

 

Peace and God Bless.

No, the Jews did not record Jesus died on the cross.

The Romans did not record either.

 

Only the Gospels do. Without corroboration from a secular source.

 

But there are recordings of many that claimed to be Messiah during the time of Jesus. All of them false.

 

How come the Gospels doesn't mention ALL the other messiahs, and explain why those messiahs are false, while the Jesus messiah is the true one? Why doesn't the Gospels clearly separate Jesus from the others, when several of them walked around and claimed being from God? Why did Paul have to explain that 10 years later? Why was the Gospels written 40 years after Jesus death? Why didn't Philo write ANYTHING about Jesus? His teachings were later incorporated into early Christian Church (100-150 CE), so why wasn't he interested in Jesus, when he was in the same city? Why doesn't the Gospels tell anything about Philo and Josephus and the other philosophers that were teaching similar messages at the same time, to make a distinction of which and what was correct? The Gospels live its own little life in its own little bubble of fantasy world, without touching true and real events and people that co-existed with alleged Jesus.

[Mythra]

Oh, man, baggsie. Are you truly that poorly informed? The jews and romans record that Jesus died on a cross? Holy shit - how clueless are you, really?

 

Hans: this guy doesn't know Philo from Dr. Phil.

 

Or Tacitus. Or Justus. Or Josephus. Or Papias. Or Irenaeus. Or Origen. Or Martyr. Or Eusebius. Or Clement. Or Polycarp. Or Ignatius.

 

But he's a true christian. La la la la, Jesus died for me.....

[Ouroboros]

Hans:  this guy doesn't know Philo from Dr. Phil.

Beer on my monitor!!! Yikes!!!

[Mythra]

You could have clarified it by saying "Philo of Alexandria", who lived during the first century.

 

But Baggsie would have probably said "Ha! Virginia didn't even exist in the first century!"

[scotter]

Baggs,

 

I am flattered that you revived the thread, and I also thank you for you input. You told us about since Islam said Jesus did not die on the Cross (subsituted by Judas) so you decided on Christianity - since they are contradictory you can only choose one, but the thread is not so much about why are you a Christian instead of being a Muslim, nor am I questioning you why do you believe Jesus and the Gospels.

 

Considering over half of NT books are revelatory (Paul’s letters derived from his encounter on the road to Damascus, and the last book of the Bible Apocalypse), what makes you think NT is more valid than other revelatory book e.g. the Quran? What makes you think Paul’s experience is more theologically valid than Muhammad’s?

 

One example - Jesus sat and died with sinners; Paul said don't.

“Put away from among yourselves that wicked person. Stay away from "fornicators", "idolaters", and "drunkards". Do not associate, speak to, or eat dinner with such "wicked" people.” 1 Cor 5:9-13

 

Thanks to pritishd and the introduced link:-

 

Before we access the link, here is Matt 5:18-19

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/newsavior.htm

Read on Baggs, and all evangelical Christians are invited to.

 

If your logic is ’being contradictory to Jesus's life and teachings’ is not to be accepted, why do you accept Paul's teachings?

Do I make my question more presentable and comprehensible to you now?

 

Look forward to the occasion that you may share with us further inputs about your cognition of Paul and Muhammad’s revelatory experiences.

 

Scotter.

[SkepticOfBible]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The bible doesn't make a distinction between moral law and ceremonial law. That is just your speculation.

 

There is nothing in the OT that under the new convenant only "moral" laws are

supposed to be kept and not ritual law.

 

Lev 19:37

Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

 

Jesus did not comply with any of the regulations and requirements for a valid sin sacrifice according to God of the OT.

[scotter]

Triv (if you ever come back), and evangelical Christians,

 

I like to know what you think, why you believe Paul, rather than "because people believed Paul at that time."

 

On the Law part, pritishd's response was concise. Thanks pritishd for your point.

[MQTA]

Just read the whole thread, thanks for resurrecting it LOL Stayed dead for over 4 months, wow.

 

If all Paul had was visions that those with him did not see, nor hear, perhaps he was dealing with the same situation Jesus dealt with, in the dessert. It would make the most sense that Satan would do that, derail all that Peter, John and James were teaching... in favor of, well, all that we've seen, the last 2K or so years.

 

It's amazing how we have the Historical Development of the Church, following 70AD, and all the turmoil, but people still prefer to believe all that's in the supposed Paul and Gospels writings.

 

I read the book of James and, while not really written By him, seems to make some sense... and then I Hear how people use Paul's writings to dismiss all of James as bunk. I think the book of James would cause one to dismiss all of Paul('s).

[SkepticOfBible]

It's amazing how we have the Historical Development of the Church, following 70AD, and all the turmoil, but people still prefer to believe all that's in the supposed Paul and Gospels writings.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Protestants would not only follow Paul but also Luther, who went ahead and threw out books from the bible.

 

Wonder when did the holy spirit get it right about which books are the word of God? In 400 AD or 1600 AD?

[Baggs]

Scotter,

Thanks for your attitude, very nice that you seem to really be open minded. The reason I quit other forums is because of the way they claim to want "good" and yet act so harshly against people with beliefs. (Evilbible.com) Is a good example.

I respect you for your attitude towards my reply.

 

 

Well, that is an interesting topic.

It would be interesting to first consider the whole of Islam to begin with then.

And no, I dont believe the gospels just because 3 vs 1 contradicted. (jew roman christian vs islam).

I personally believe the basic man reason why Christians dont believe the whole of the Quraan is because they arent Muslim. The Bible is a big enough book that alot of us dont even have time to read, much more another book that isnt considered part of Christianity.

 

As for Paul, I personally dont consider the new testament to be part of scripture. I consider the Torah to be scripture, the rest of the books I consider to be divinely inspired texts.

 

So it would now become an issue of "is it divinely inspired or not". I had some times when I would chat with a muslim back in the day but most of the time I cant find a muslim who can talk clear english. I did get fortunate a couple of times to actually find a muslim who can, but we spent the time talking not about the NT vs Quraan, but instead we talked about sin and what the Bible said about it. He was basically more focused on hearing me out rather than giving me the history of the Quraan and its divine inspiration.

 

So, if we have any muslims in here, or any historians/theologians of sorts who can give us basics of the foundations of Islam, that would help me alot to consider the texts of the Quraan to be divinely inspired.

 

I'm non denominational basically, I wont have alot of troubles accepting doctrine from different denominations, or even religion, as long as it is explained to me in a decent way that it actually makes sense. Such as Buddhism "in anger seek not to harm others" I find that to make sense, so I dont have troubles accepting that.

 

It's funny to add though that people hate it when I get angry and say I'm not spose to get angry if I'm a Christian. - interesting that even Buddhism condones anger. Hmm, to think of it, Jesus did get angry in some occasions called people sons of Satan, sons of hell, etc. Anyway thats unrelated. Peace and God Bless.

[scotter]

Baggs,

 

As for Paul, I personally dont consider the new testament to be part of scripture. I consider the Torah to be scripture, the rest of the books I consider to be divinely inspired texts.

 

I found your view refreshing. Thank you for your feedback.

 

 

How the Quran and Islam came to be, here is a short religious URL from BBC.

I think BBC is neutral.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/f...slam_life.shtml

 

About Muhammad's experience, it is controversial. The events themselves could not be proved.