Professor at Evangelical College suspended for saying Muslims and Christians have connection in God

[Gxg (G²)]

She shouldn't have been suspended. However, we don't believe the same. Christians believe Christ is God. Muslims reject this notion. I don't see how we can consider that we worship the same God, in light of this. Yes, our religions have the same root; however, that doesn't mean we believe the same things about God. Christians believe there is no salvation outside of Christ.

It actually has never been the case that Muslims all believe that Christ is not God and this is something that has been noted for centuries...as there have already been substantial amounts of Muslims who came to trust in Jesus alone (Isa) because of what they read in the Qu'ran which said He alone was the Messiah and source of salvation after honestly reading the text. Having Muslims in my family background, I've seen this play out as well and this is why it can be extensively difficult whenever it comes to speaking to of what Muslims believe - or what all Christians believe. As it is, there are multiple groups of Christians noting Christ is the way to salvation and yet they also point out the reality of what it means to serve Lord.

With the text itself, it's always important to remember that one must have a better sense of context before thinking one can interpret the text. There are different sects of Islam, just as there are of Christianity (or any other belief) and adherence to the particular understanding of these groups can alter the way the text is understood and how one acts. And within Islam, there has ALWAYS been camps who note plainly that Isa is the Messiah and ALWAYS greater than Mohammad - even though other Immans read the text wrongly (or avoid it outright) when it comes to missing how Mohammad himself always said Jesus was the Messiah.

Some of this has been discussed before - as I've shared before in places such as "Trinitarian Monotheism?" (http://www.christianforums.com/.../trinitarian.../page-5 ) or "how can Muslims say Jesus is the Messiah but not accept him as the son of God?" ( http://www.christianforums.com/.../how-can.../page-21... ) and many other places. Personally, I do not appreciate it at ANY point when Muslims have been discriminated against and things claimed of them by outsiders that do not deal with what they've said. Others such as St. John of Damascus (when Islam in its beginning stages was called “the heresy of the Ishmaelites") was one who interacted a lot with Muslims....and there were many other early Church Fathers who did the same. There was an extensive history where both Christians and Muslims went to Holy Places together and interacted - but the radicals in Islam had a big issue with that. ...and thus, what you see currently is the extremists seeking to end that. Even other Muslims have protested and complained against what radical Islamists have done to Holy Sites and Christians......


As an example of commonality, With regards to the Trinity, I am glad for other Christian scholars pointing out the issue plainly. As one scholar said best (Dr. Miroslav Volf):

Some theologians argue that when Christians and Muslims say "God is one," they mean fundamentally different things, since for the Christian, God is a Trinity.

I would respond by asking, "Do Christians and Jews worship different gods?" And I would hope the response would be, "No. Jews and Christians worship the same God. They just understand God in a different way—Christians in a Trinitarian way, and Jews not."

Some Jews and Muslims accuse Christians of being idolatrous for believing in the Trinity. My response to both groups is that they fundamentally misunderstand the Christian understanding of the Trinity. It's not that we worship three distinct entities who sit on three thrones next to each other; we worship one undivided, divine being who comes to us in three persons.

I would also argue that the denials of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Qur'an are denials of an inappropriately understood version of the Trinity. My claim is simply that much of what Muslims deny of the Trinity (e.g., that we worship three gods) ought to be denied by every right-believing Christian.

We've come up with this idea that Muslims are our enemy, and that Muslim terrorism and extremism are the most important enemies we should be combating. I think this is bogus.


Don't most religions postulate a God who is all-powerful and merciful? Is it possible that we all worship the same God in the end?

In that case, maybe there is no such thing as idolatry, only different interpretations.

If somebody postulates the existence of more than one god, I would have to say we don't worship the same god. If somebody says that God is basically one with the world, I would also have to say we don't worship the same god. What binds Muslims and Christians, and what is central to my argument, is that God is one, that God is distinct from the world, and that the one God has created everything that is not God. There is a radical divide between creature and creator. This is a fundamental monotheistic belief. Muslims, Christians, and Jews share that belief. Therefore, they believe in the same God. Polytheists and idolaters do not share that belief.

If Christians and Muslims worship the same God and understand his will as more or less the same—to love God and neighbor—are Islam and Christianity two equally worthy paths to salvation?

I can worship the same God and still not properly, adequately, fully relate to that God or understand who that God is and what God's ways with humanity are. Each of the faiths, Islam and Christianity, has a different way of understanding precisely what God demands and, more fundamentally, what God gives. And I think it's appropriate for each of the faiths—but especially for Christians, who are commanded to do so—to engage in witness, to point to the full reality of who God is and what Jesus Christ in particular has done for the salvation of humanity.

4

With similarities, When understanding the background of how the Quran developed, some things tend to make more sense as to how it developed as it did. Again, studying one of the earliest critiques of St.John of Damascus is amongst the best routes to go with since his view was that Islam (when it was starting) was essentially a heresy within Christianity rather than something different at ALL points from Christianity. He called it the "Heresy of the Ishmaelites." John the Damascene was a saint and an early Church Father who experienced Islam during its infantile stages...

• St John of Damascus on Islam | biblicalia
• Of The Tractate of John of Damascus on Islam
• The Way of the Fathers » St. John of Damascus on Islam
• St. John of Damascus and the Ishmaelite Heresy « Marcio.ca
• St. John of Damascus’s Critique of Islam - Orthodox Christian Information Center
• Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road: Exploring a New Path Between Two FaithsBy Paul-Gordon Chandler
• Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road: Exploring a New Path ... - Page 102

As others have often noted, the problem with Islam is that it stopped where Muhammad began. He had tried to call his people to worship God against pagan worship/idolatry..and reintroduced the Abrahamic faith into a pagan area. However, despite any positive gains, there were many others that were later developed into error as life went on---making him comparable to Solomon, the great teacher/king who ended his life doing exactly opposite of what he had initially preached and demonstrated. To judge from the subsequent nature of Islam, Christianity seems to have been particularly interesting to him, since Muhammad adopted and adapted quite a few Christian ideas...and IMHO, when studying the people who initially came into the land where Muhammad grew up in, it seems that much of the Disputes between the Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Roman Catholic papacy influenced Muhammad s understanding of Christianity on certain levels. Despite all of the ways that Muhammad did erroneous things, I'd tend to agree with others who feel that the man was partially a victim of Christianity/the evolution it went through.

The man was also a victim of having several things occurring at once. As another noted best on St. John of Damascus' critique of Early Islam:

First of all, it is essential to realize that theology in Islam developed in large part as a result of specific political debates. On theological issues, there is evidence that it may also have developed, at least in part, as a reaction to early Christian-Muslim polemics. Ignaz Goldziher, a respected Orientalist, reminds us that "Prophets are not theologians." Essentially Goldziher means that those who “receive” revelation may not have any idea about how to put it together consistently, nor are they always aware of the contradictions that later generations will have to reconcile. The Qur’an has little to say in regard to actual theology and Muhammad did not have much to add outside of the later Hadith traditions. These traditions, moreover, deal more with actions rather than beliefs. Therefore, it is necessary to understand that there is a significant difference between Christianity and Islam in regard to their view of theology; Christianity is concerned with orthodoxy (right doctrine) and Islam stresses orthopraxy (right practice). John Esposito writes that “for Christianity, the appropriate question is, ‘What do Christians believe?’ In contrast, for Islam (as for Judaism), the correct question is, ‘What do Muslims do?’"vPerhaps that is why even today there is such an emphasis on faith for many Christians and on obedience for most Muslims. Esposito refers to the Muslim belief that the “Book of deeds” will be used as a basis for their judgment, while in Christianity the basis will be a person’s faith in Christ and his atoning death – belief in what Christ has done for us rather than what we can do for him.6 Islamic theology most likely developed out of its sociopolitical context and its early confrontation with Christian polemics​

From what I understand, Constantine legalized Christianity and made it the official religion of the Empire. Technically, as shared elsewhere, his actions were really in connection with other Emperors since there was another who he was a Co-Ruler with that made a difference (Licinius in specific). - and to be clear, Licinius was a pagan emperor who ended up punishing/persecuting Christians everywhere in his competition with Constantine to be dominant since he felt that it was not good to have one claim Christ as emperor. People who were Christians were kept from labor/jobs and harmed in several other ways.....and the two co-emperors, the pagan Licinius and the Christian Constantine, reigned together over an indivisible empire at one point and both sides had mistreatment of Christians occur and Pagans. The man did grant everyone - Christians, Jews and others - the liberty to worship as they pleased....but his religion to promote was Christianity - with believers rejoicing in it in the same way that the Jews of Ezra's time rejoiced when the King of Persia promoted their culture/beliefs politically (Ezra 1-4) .


And in order to ensure there was unity, the many councils occurred over the years for Christians to discuss among themselves. And during the time when the Nicene Creed established orthodoxy, especially as it related to the Person of Christ, Expulsion of heresy occurred as a result of nationalized Christianity—many “Christians” with variant beliefs migrated/fled to the Arabian peninsula, which by the 6th century comprised a mixture of Jews, Hanifs, polytheistic Arab tribes, and “Christians” with varying beliefs.

In the context that Muhammad lived in, his influences were Arab polytheists, "heretic" Christians, Jews, and Abrahamic monotheists called Hanifs. The Qur’an addresses a number of heresies that had already been dealt with 300 years earlier during the age of great Christian councils, and we should learn to read it through the cultural lens of its time. Some examples of heresies it addressed were ones like saying that Jesus/God the Father and the Holy Spirit were "3 different gods" (as many Muslims often say "CHristians" say when failing to understand that Muhammad said not to support the ideology of 3 gods since other Christians were condeming such).

Happened for others when they witnessed to Muslims and realized that many of their reactions were due to misunderstanding what Biblical Christianity was truly about. One story I remember involved a man witnessing to two Muslims and one Muslim noted "Did God have any sons?"---and the man said "Yes"...with the Muslim replying "NOT ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE!!!!". The believer was shocked and asked his Arabic Christian friend why, with the other responding by asking what the Muslim meant. The man translated and said the Muslim was offended due to thinking that God having a Son (Christ) meant that he had sexual relations with Mary---similar to the ways that Greek-Gods did things and how Mormonism teaches when it says God fathered Jesus through "celestial sex" with other beings.

When the Christian explained the issue to the man and clarified what he meant---that being the Son of GOD DIDN'T imply sexual relations, the Arabic Christian asked the Muslim if what the Christian made sense...and to the Muslim, he said that it definately connected. It all came back to the issue of understanding how to best connect with others and changing the conversation/finding ways to speak in manners that actually made sense to others....more shared here and here. I glad that Yeshua left us the example He did when it came to relating to others---with his stances toward Samaritans being amongst the most powerful (as many have often equated the Muslims with Samaritans in many ways, more discussed here at Frontier Missions

But some of this has been covered elsewhere more in-depth, as said here:

THere's no escaping the reality that Muhammad did a lot of bad, as well as a lot of good/things directly in line with what the Bible calls for. He addressed things such as polytheism amongst the Arab people/condemned it for what it was--and he sought to unite his people as well.

As another wisely noted:

While it is an error to maintain, as Muslims do, that Muhammad was history’s greatest moral example, some critics are equally mistaken when they go to the opposite extreme and portray Muhammad as history’s worst moral example. Indeed, Muhammad had many positive characteristics. We know that he was courageous, both because he patiently endured several years of persecution in Mecca and because he fought in numerous raids and battles. Throughout his life, Muhammad placed an emphasis on helping orphans and widows. There were times when he showed great mercy. He was an ardent monotheist, and despised idolatry. He told his followers to heed God’s prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. These are areas where even non-Muslims would agree that Muhammad exhibited positive traits.
​

When someone argues that Muhammad was a robber or a murderer, it is often the case that many Muslims suddenly cry out in one accord, "But he was merciful and kind! He started Islam!! How dare you say something bad about him!? He was the greatest prophet ever! Stop being so intolerant!"

The difficulty here is that, no matter how loudly a Muslim shouts these objections, they have no power to overcome the historical fact that Muhammad was a robber and a murderer.....and if saying he was the greatest example, any claim to moral superiority will be an empirical issue, that is, a matter of examining and weighing the evidence.
Tragically, examining the evidence is something that most Muslims seem unwilling to do. For example, Abul A’la Mawdudi presents the following picture of Muhammad:

He is entirely different from the people among whom he is born and with whom he spends his youth and early manhood. He never tells a lie. The whole nation is unanimous in testifying to his truthfulness. . . . He is the very embodiment of modesty in the midst of a society which is immodest to the core. . . . He helps the orphans and the widows. He is hospitable to travelers. He harms no one . . . [He] is such a lover of peace that his heart melts for the people when they take up arms and cut each other’s throats. . . . In brief, the towering and radiant personality of this man, in the midst of such a corrupted and dark environment, may be likened to a beacon-light brightening a pitch-dark night or to a diamond in a heap of dead stones. . . . [After he begins to deliver the message of Islam the] ignorant nation turns against him. Abuses and stones are showered at his august person. Every conceivable torture and cruelty is perpetrated upon him. . . . Can anyone ever imagine a higher example of self-sacrifice, brotherliness and kind-heartedness towards his fellow beings than that a man would ruin his happiness for the good of others, while those very people for whose betterment he is striving should stone him, abuse him, banish him, and give him no quarter even in his exile, and that, in spite of this all, he should refuse to stop working for their well being? . . . When he began preaching his Message, all of Arabia stood in awe and wonder and was bewitched by his wonderful eloquence and oratory. It was so impressive and captivating that his worst enemies were afraid of hearing it, lest it should penetrate deep into the recesses of their hearts and carry them off their feet making them forsake their old religion and culture. It was so matchless that the whole legion of Arab poets, preachers, and speakers of the highest caliber failed to bring forth its equivalent. . . . This reserved and quiet man who, for a full forty years, never gave any indication of political interest or activity, suddenly appeared on the stage of the world as such a great political reformer and statesman that without the aid of radio, telephone and press, he brought together the scattered inhabitants of a desert extending across twelve hundred thousand square miles. He joined together a people who were warlike, ignorant, unruly, uncultured, and plunged in self-destructive trivial warfare—under one banner, one law, one religion, one culture, one civilization, and one form of government. . . . He accomplished this feat not through any lure, oppression or cruelty, but by his captivating manner, his winsome personality, and the conviction of his teaching.


--Abul A’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam (Islamic Circle of North America, 1986), pp. 52-67.
​

This is actually a very condensed version of Mawdudi’s reverent depiction of his beloved prophet, but it accurately reflects the Islamic conception of Muhammad by many. The problem, of course, is that this conception is horribly inaccurate. The historical Muhammad (that is, the Muhammad we can know about through history) was psychologically unstable at many points, ruthless towards his enemies, and, according to some, sexually perverted. This isn’t to say that Muhammad was all bad. He wasn’t, and Mawdudi is correct in maintaining that Muhammad’s character played a role in converting people to Islam. Even so, while Muhammad may have had many redeeming features, some of his less admirable characteristics are difficult to ignore.


But again, despite where there were flaws, there is no justification for saying that all things done by the man were bad.

The Quran actually has passages in it which were directly from scripture (seeing the context that the author of the Quran grew up in) - and of course, the Quran has elements in it that were not in line with how Christians saw Christ - the entire concept of partial revelation and knowing what Muhammad was actually facing in the time/era he grew up in.

It is NOT in the Quran at any point (nor was the early thought of Muslims in the development of Islam) that Christ was not the atonement for sins - seeing it note plainly that Christ (Isa) WAS and IS the Messiah to save all of mankind/deliver judgement. Anyone speaking past that already goes counter to the Quran in its original text....and that is a common error that has been addressed for centuries by Muslims in Islam (which is why it was noted that you cannot make claims without actual validation or addresment of where the text differed from you). And the Quran did not note that in no sense was Christ crucified - the context was always that men could never have killed Christ fully since death has no ultimate control over life and that Jesus laid DOWN His life - no man could kill Him without permission.

This is why it was noted that one can't merely make claims on what the Quran says and then deny what it actually says - or avoid how others understood/proclaimed what was said on it in the time/era it began. And as you've not grown up Muslim, it is a bit evident you don't really address the Quran.

As it is, Islamic textual content(The Qur'an) primarily consist of Gnostic Gospels from the Syrian orders as is evident since Syrian Arabic and its dialect occurs in many places in the Qur'an. There were things present IN the Syrian orders since there were various forms of Christian thought which tended to get included as well (Based on forms of Christian ideas Mohommad was exposed to).

Moreover, Most, if not ALL of Islam is based on non-canonical Jewish sources that existed amongst the illiterate Jews of western Arabia and which were told by storytellers in the public market places of mainly Mecca. And the same goes for stories told by many of the Christians who were exiled from the Eastern empire due to their views being herectical/not accepted by the Orthodoxy of the day.

.... What the Quran is against is the concept of there being MULTIPLE Gods (polytheism) to be worshiped....and this is the issue that was happening in the Early Church when others coming into Muhammad's territory were exiled from the Church (Byzantine Empire) due to their proclaiming that Christ was one god among many and that Christ was akin to the Greek Gods who were born of sexual unions. Christians long noted the same things and Muhammad saw that directly.


Again, in the context that Muhammad lived in, his influences were Arab polytheists, "heretic" Christians, Jews, and Abrahamic monotheists called Hanifs. The Qur’an addresses a number of heresies that had already been dealt with 300 years earlier during the age of great Christian councils, and we should learn to read it through the cultural lens of its time. Some examples of heresies it addressed were ones like saying that Jesus/God the Father and the Holy Spirit were "3 different gods" (as many Muslims often say "CHristians" say when failing to understand that Muhammad said not to support the ideology of 3 gods since other Christians were condeming such).

One cannot ignore the actual background of the Quran and simply harp on claims of what it says - yet show no verification within the Quran on those stances.

Nowhere in scripture does it ever note that Jesus Himself would not have fallen into the Judgement of God if He ever sinned against the Lord - the entire reason why the Incarnation itself was very real, as it was truly a temptation of the Lord that occurred in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 and the stakes were high in light of how Christ was also a man subject to the Law of God that mankind was commanded to live out.
Incorrect (again), in light of where the Quran later noted directly that His being the Messiah was in regards to bringing JUDGEMENT on the world for its sins and being the One Allah Himself exalted over mankind, as well as the one who would cleanse man of his sins.

As noted before, people not actually reading the Quran and going on stereotypes actually tend to note the claims of "Jesus is just treated as a Prophet in the Quran" without actually reading the rest. And this has happened predominately with Christians who have a bent AGAINST anything pertaining to Islam - as well as Muslims who don't actually read the Quran.
"Peace Be Upon Him" was NEVER the only phrase used for Prophets - as it's an everyday phrase also used to other Muslims....one of the basics that are understood if actually growing up MUSLIM (which is rather evident you haven't ). And the distinct phrase used of Isa was radically different than what was given of Muhammad.

And with the Clay Pigeon story, it's not a radical thing that's new when dealing with context.


To give a different perspective on why so much within the Qur'an is similar to what is found in Christianity and why Mohommad knew that, it was once noted that what was noted in the Qura'an on Christ was indeed the same Yeshua but with a newly decorated biography---with the essentially looking to the right person but with an incomplete understanding that could lead to bad consequences.

Seeing how Muhammad himself was not really a scholar on all points and was heavily influenced by the accounts of Christ he may've heard from other believers in Christ, it is not surprising to me to see the many ways in which some of the things he notes are not fully accurate..or as well expounded upon as in the very Bible which the Quran encourages all to actually study. Its always interesting to see the many accounts of believers in Christ who noted that they grew up studying the Quran--and yet, grew from that into reading the scriptures when they noticed how the Quran instructed them to do so...and thus, they ended up reading the scriptures/gaining a fuller view of what the Quran only saw to a limited degree...

Some of it's akin to the dynamic of folk or tale tales and real biographies, as the former deal with unbelievable elements, related as if it were true and factual, even thoug there are many true aspects it was built around while other things are exaggerations. Some stories are exaggerations of actual historical/biographical eventS (i.e. Davey Crocket and the Alamo, John Henry, etc), for example fish stories ('the fish that got away') such as, "that fish was so big, why I tell ya', it nearly sank the boat when I pulled it in!"---but compared to an actual biography, one will get fuller details that describe an event in its fullness and give clarity on one aspect that wasn't understood as fully.

For a practical example of this within the Quran, one can consider the example of where it was noted that the Lord made clay pigeons come to life. In the Quran, it notes that "Jesus could make birds out of clay and create life for the amusement of his playmates with "Allah's" permission. He would make clay birds into which he breathed and they were transformed, by the Lord's permission into real birds that could fly. i.e. duplication of the process of CREATION, by God's permission. Seeing that, one must ask 'what purpose was there in allowing 'Jesus' to make birds out of clay what could fly (with Allah's permission) further God's purpose? For God doesn't do things without a purpose.

That fact that 'Jesus' could do this tells us that as a child 'Jesus' could create life. And who creates life, but God Himself? In the final analysis, perhaps the Qur'an is demonstrating that 'Jesus' is the Creator. For notice according to the Qur'an "Allah" creates through His Word---and Jesus/Isa is considered the Word and Spirit of God. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an didn't realize what this all meant...as he repeated Christian folklore and made a huge mistake in repeating it without understanding the full implications.

From an historical perspective, some of the stories in the Quran must have been circulating around Arabian caravan routes where Muhammad may have heard them when he was in the employ of his wife Khadija. If interested, the following 7-minute video explains a few of them.

​

With Eastern Christianity (in some circles), similar things have often come up...as there's one account somewhere I remember learning of where the 18yrs of the life was Christ (between when he was 12 and when he went into ministry) involved Him traveling to India, making playful miracles and learning. In the Quran itself, those specific folklore stories are from the second century and older. Some of the material in the Ahadith is actually taken verbatim from the Gospel of Thomas. The story of Jesus talking to Mary in the Cradle, as it appears in the Quran in Surah 3:38-48, has always interested me. For the story was most likely being told in the times of Muhammad when considering the pseudepigrapha accounts of the same. --and for more, one can go here or here, in light of how many other scholars have been noting the same for sometime now. Apparently Muhammad heard them told verbally and thought they were true, when in fact, they are folklore. He couldn't tell the difference, as one who wasn't educated. They include Jesus talking as an infant and making clay birds that could fly, plus others.

On the issue of folklore within the Quran, something else that may be worth noting is that many of the things that could be folk stories learned from other Christians still have much they can convey. In example, concerning the clay pigeon example, Christ did some pretty radical miracles that may've been VERY CRAZY to see---such as spitting in mud/placing it in someone's eyes ( John 9:5-7 ) or touching one's tongue and spitting before they were healed--as in Mark 7:32-34 --and the same with Mark 8:22-24 where he spit in a man's eyes. John 2 where he turned water into wine and helped keep a party going is another famous (and hilarious ) instance that I'm reminded of. ...and much of it seems odd. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that because it seems odd to us automatically makes it something to suspect would not further God's purpose. In the wilderness experience in Matthew 4, if God commanded Jesus to turn stones into bread, that would have not been a problem. For God made food and Jesus being God could have done so. But his purpose in the wilderness was to fast...and had He turned stones to bread without first being One with the Father in reflecting His Will, He would have been acting without proper authority. What Satan tried to do with Jesus was to get Him to use His powers to satisfy His own desires rather than trusting God to supply all that He needed during His temptation...which Jesus responded to by reminding the enemy what the people of Israel should have learned in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 8:3).

Likewise, with clay pigeons, I don't think it'd be a good example for one to use if trying to show where Islam may miss it with stories of Christ. For even if/when it may not be a true story, it still does show the dynamic of what Scripture testifies to when saying that Jesus obeyed as a man, as the representive for all who believe so as to "fulfill all righteousness" ( Matthew 3:15, Hebrews 2:5-18, Hebrews 5:1-10, etc).

The same dynamics, IMHO, would also apply to things such as the Talmud and Rabbinical sources which are often quoted as authoritative, even if many weren't expressely mentioned in the Torah--for although some have aspects to them which are not really accurate according to the Torah and some things can be speculative, they can still offer valuable insights which can be benefical when having a Hebraic perspective on who the Messiah is.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The professor was quite correct in observing that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all "Abrahamic" faiths and all religions "of the book". There being only one God, all who worship God are worshipping the same God albeit that different faiths might view that one God in different ways and know that God by different names. I regard her attempt to exhibit solidarity with her Muslim fellow citizens by wearing a hijab to be a compassionate and very Christian action. I also know that many of my fellow Christians will feel very differently. That saddens me.

On the issue, I think a lot of the reactions others have done toward her are Not in accordance with what the Early Church actually DID - which is where the real issue lies when seeing how Christians interacted with Islam, be it with St. John of Damascus or several others in the early church when it was on the rise since it was seen as a sect WITHIN Christianity that was incomplete. It's a poor response, IMHO, seeing others not even deal with actually showing what others in Islam actually believe before claiming what either can or cannot be in connection - although when people speak of Islam, they tend to think of Radical Islam. And that's the same as thinking of the KKK in the South, Dutch Reformed with regards to supporting Apartheid and seeing the Indigenous as "Cannanites" to be wiped out, Imperialistic Christianity with the British Empire or the Spanish Empire in its treatment of others in the New World (i.e. genocide, slavery, etc.), Americanism with regards to every single war we've justified in the name of God and so many other things.

All of those things do NOT represent True Christianity just as other things in Islam (with the violence) don't represent all Muslims..

And to be clear, in the event that it's even stated later in the thread "Well Muslims are not speaking out on the issues of violence!!!", I do hope others would remember the following:

Nottingham Inter Faith Council
December 12 at 2:26am ·
This is good news - for all of us



70,000 Muslim clerics just issued a fatwa against terrorism
Nearly 70,000 Indian Muslim clerics have signed a fatwa against Isis and other terror groups saying they were "not Islamic organisations". Around 1.5 million Muslims…
INDEPENDENT.CO.UK/NEWS/WORLD/ASI…4


​

It is not that difficult to bring up Islam & World Peace in the context of Perspectives from African Muslim Nonviolence Traditions, be it from Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi Balkhi (who was a 13th century Muslim Sufi saint and one stressing peace/love repeatedly alongside others) or many others:

-"Peace in Islam in the light of Quran and traditions of Prophet (http://www.academia.edu/.../Peace_in_Islam_in_the_light... )

-"Islam & World Peace Conference: Violence and Non-Violence in Sufism Part 1" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02UIdt0yTFo )

-"A Collection of Hadith on Non-Violence, Peace and Mercy" (http://sufism.org/foundations/hadith/peacehadith-2)​

Also, as it concerns those seeking violence, For reference, there are numerous imans/leaders in the Islamic world who've condemned ISIS AS Well as other groups showing Radical Islam and called it out in many cases - with the Quran itself condemning ISIS There are actually several already - doesn't take that long to investigate, just as it doesn't take long seeing the extensive history of Muslims who protected Christians (at their own expense) or Christians in the early Church who won the heart of Muslims by walking in peace (if taking the early Church seriously in what they noted). For basics, there is Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the group representing 57 countries, and 1.4 billion Muslims. But of course, there are many others..

)

--"UK IMAMS AGAINST ISIS" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bd0Y6qWmlA )

--Quran-Islam.org - True Islam ( http://www.quran-islam.org/.../the_concept_of_jihad... )

--"Top Ten Ways Islamic Law forbids Terrorism" (http://www.juancole.com/.../islamic-forbids-terrorism.html )

---"Dr. Shabir Ally refutes Ayaan Hirsi Ali's new book " Heretic "" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAwYeoz3VI4 )

--"Does the Qur'an promote Violence (Surah 9:5) ? - Dr. Shabir Ally" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMsUbsOr80M )

On the basis of the Quran alone, it'd not be too terribly difficult to condemn reckless violence/terrorism just as it'd not be difficult within the NT alone noting why it was not wrong for slaves to seek out their freedom/fight against oppression (Even while others used direct quotes in Philemon or Colossians or Romans 13 to support advocacy for slavery) - it is about context.

Historically, with regards to jihad, the context is one that is in many respects similar to the Christian Just War theory as first proposed by St. Augustine, as it concerns having set rules limiting Muslim warfare, including that it must be waged with good intention and not be done outside of the repeated contexts for seeking peace/love for others. Historically, The Ahmadiyya sect is one of the most outspoken Muslim groups regarding the message of Islam to be a peaceful one although violence is not rejected outright ...

Other Imams have long pointed out how wrong it would be for any Muslim scholar or Imam to dare go against the Quran claiming there was a right to kill someone if they refused to be believed in. That's not even consistent with Muslim communities in how they live life - and for the many amazing and beautiful Muslims around the world and in our nation, it is a privilege to honor them for their sacrifices and all they do

Mohammad Ali (a part of Sunni Islam) always comes to mind when seeing how he has carried Himself:

 

[seashale76]

The more this thread goes on the more you can see how 'One True Wayism' really is detrimental to ones spiritual journey. Sure it's the first stop for many seekers, but sadly many can't move past it.

In other words, how dare Christians defend their beliefs against beliefs that aren't Christian? Your anti-Christian stance is noted.

 

[dlamberth]

When we move past all of the different beliefs, dogma and culture that separate us as religions and instead look at the heart experiences of being in the presence of God,...it's the same God. I honor those who recognize that spiritual Truth.

 

[seashale76]

People go to any lengths to reject the notion that Christ is God.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The professor was quite correct in observing that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all "Abrahamic" faiths and all religions "of the book". There being only one God, all who worship God are worshipping the same God albeit that different faiths might view that one God in different ways and know that God by different names. I regard her attempt to exhibit solidarity with her Muslim fellow citizens by wearing a hijab to be a compassionate and very Christian action. I also know that many of my fellow Christians will feel very differently. That saddens me.

What follows is an article I think may help you - It's from an article written by a priest in the ROCOR that discusses if Islam and Judaism worship the same God as us.

• The Monotheistic Religions; Do We Have the Same God That Non-Christians Have?

It seemed he was arguing, among other things, that the Jews worshiped a Trinitarian God...even though others have noted how it would be pretty hard to convincingly maintain that they did so knowingly, at least in regards to the bulk of the Jews - for if they knowingly worshipped a Trinitarian God, the entire battle with accepting Christ might have been rather less shocking to them. But if they could, without entirely realizing it, worship a Triniarian God, then it is not necessarily impossible that someone else, like modern Jews or Muslims or other Christian groups emphasizing the oneness of God in a desire to honor Him (even though mistaken), could as well - more discussed in places such as Salvation of Muslims and Jews (as well as here, here and here)..

And of course, other places to go are found here in the following:

• If a Muslim Dies Saving Christians, Are they a "Christian Martyr"?
• Iranian Shi'a Muslim Iconography | Islam MEETS Orthodoxy

As another noted best:

I would say yes, we worship the same God as the Jews. The difference is they knew Him before us, and so didn't know Him fully, whereas the Muslims met Him after the Incarnation, where He was fully revealed to us, and then rejected the original and changed Him further. To take my "Harry" example up there, Jews knew Harry before we did, but didn't know he lives with his father and brother. They still assert he lives alone, but their friendship with him isn't as close as it would be if they accepted this new information about him. Muslims met Harry after it was common knowledge that he lives with his relatives, but are still refusing to accept it.

It's one thing to doubt a new truth about something when you already knew it. To be introduced to something, then assert you know more about it than what was known by the experts who introduced you to it, is another.​

For more info, Islamic tradition - as it concerns what's often seen today in many places - does deny Christ was crucified. Although the time period makes a difference in light of how tradition will vary based on the age one lives in.....and what's understood based on a tradition will vary as well. How others understood a majority view to be in the times of the Early Body of Christ when Islam was developing (as in the time of St. John of Damascus) is different than how many in the majority understand a text/concept to be - and in the time of the Early Church, it was never the case that Islamic tradition was understood in the majority to mean that Christ was never crucified. They knew what the language of the Quran was about and didn't respond as many camps today do...

And there's a difference between Qu'ranic Islam vs Cultural Islam, just as there's a difference between Biblical/Textual Christianity and Cultural Christianity. Others are often unaware of the difference and thus they ignore what others have already said.

There was an excellent article on the issue I'd highly recommend entitled The Crucifixion in Shi'a Isma'ili Islam - The Matheson Trust | For and Antioch Believer!: What does the Quran say about Jesus death?

Islam is indeed Monotheist - as is Judaism - although I'd note that it really is best to understand what it holds to as Radical Monotheism. But it does not preclude from trusting in Christ alone (as it concerns His Divinity and Salvation) to be for Him. ..and it's always a blessing dealing with what other Muslims have lived out...and continue to live out daily in regards to worship of Isa Al Masih. There are other places to keep in mind as well.

And there are already plenty of Muslims (or Muslim Background Believers) who've spoken on the issue in the community with regards to trusting Isa for salvation. In example, One of the most prominent voices I've seen on the issue is Professor Faouzi Arzouni’ , who grew up within Islam and has noted repeatedly what his experiences were like coming to see Isa Al Masih (more shared in Faouzi Arzouni - Qur'an-Bible Comparison )

We can start with St. John of Damascus, Griffith, S.H, Abdul Saleeb, Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, Brother Andrew & Al Janssen / Revell , Abd al-Masih, Paul-Gordan Chandler, Farhan Qureshi

We can also address Abdullah Saeed (as it concerns comparing the modern trend of Muslim followers of Isa to the first-century Jews who also put their trust in the Messiah) from “The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures.” (The Muslim World, vol. 92:3-4 Fall, 419-436)...or *Arberry A.J. of The Koran Interpreted – A Translation. New York: Touchstone –....as well as Fouad Elias Accad of Building Bridges – Christianity and Islam.

“First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims.” (International Journal of Frontier Missions, vol. 17:1 Spring, 33-39)...as well as Keith E. Swartley (of the book "Building Bridges").....and, of course,
Kenneth Cragg of "Jesus & the Muslim—An Exploration" ( investigation of the relationship between Islam and Christianity as seen through the examples of the life of Syrian novelist Mazhar Mallouhi, a self-described “Sufi Muslim follower of Christ.” )....and Nabeel Qureshi (who has worked with other scholars such as Ravi Zacharias and others who grew up in the Muslim world in the Orthodox camps of Islam) - and "The Moslem Christ – An Essay on the Life, Character, and Teachings of Jesus Christ According to the Koran and Orthodox Traditions" by Samuel M. Zwemer (made in 1912)

At the end of the day, we have to always keep God's Mercy in mind when it comes to how He interacts with others.

As it is, the claim that Muslims do not believe in the Divinity of Christ always seems to come up from many and it's something that I think shows GREAT ignorance of what is actually said in Islam.

In regards to the diversity of Muslims as it concerns worship/who is the focus, I think it's worth noting how there are and have always been many Muslims/Muslim camps that have actually advocated this concept when it comes to seeing what is stated directly within the Quran with the Divinity of Christ and others who worship Him - some of this discussed more in the thread entitled Trinitarian Monotheism?

There's actually one camp of Muslims that many are not aware of called the Isawa Isa al-Masih (ee-sah ahl-mah-seeh) – Jesus the Messiah. ... (disciples of Isa) – a sect of Islam in northern Nigeria which exalts Jesus (Isa)...also called the Hausa Muslims - more discussed on them by scholar Mallam Ibrahim in the Encyclopedia of Islamic Civilization and Religion (by Ian Richard Netton ) and My Neighbour's Faith: Islam Explained for African Christians . And other camps similar to them..

There are many others besides this - with the issue of Christ as Divine not being something they have any issue with seeing within the text of the Quran itself. A lot of folks encounter Islam on a very surface level alone, not even aware of how others such as St. John of Damascus and other great Christian scholars of the Early Church interacted with Islam (when Islam in its beginning stages was called “the heresy of the Ishmaelites ).

As it concerns Muslims and Salvation, how one walks makes a difference and the Lord always spoke highly of those who love justice, walking in mercy and walk rightly. As C.S Lewis noted best, "Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ’s body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man’s fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more. (pg. 64)

I agree...

But again, there are many variations of Islam and we need to understand it from the perspective of what the Qu'ran actually says - and be honorable rather than looking at extremes. Some of this has been noted before more in-depth, as said here:

When I refer to Islam as a religion, I refer to that which follows an accurate exegesis of the Quran and secondarily the Sunna. An accurate exegesis of the Quran would situate all Suras and ayat within not only their internal context but the historical context of what was the occasion for each Sura/aya. An example of such translation and interpretation is done by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem.

Some (i.e. Reza Aslan) think that Islam is going through a period not unlike the Reformation Period in Christianity, which produced untold bloodshed and mutual persecution. Aslan's somewhat optimistic prediction is that it will eventually burn itself out and moderation will prevail.

But I am referring to the original teachings of Islam, not the changing sands of political power. If the teaching of a religion were dependent on political power, then Jesus would have been the most colossal failure ever among religious figures.

But political power is not how we determine the original teachings of a religion. Nor is it determined by mob angst. That is the point I've been trying to make.

Excellent points - as it concerns the varied ways in which cultural Islam or Imperialistic Islam are directly opposed to Quranic Islam (i.e. going strictly based on the text) - we often forget this reality in the West even though Christianity went through the same exact experience...both with the Reformation (and other Reformations/movements after that) as well as the Catholic world in differing movements (especially with how imperialism was wielded to it when it came to Spain and other countries in the New World/Americas and doing a lot of mess to the natives in the name of Christ).

More specifically, Christ and His teachings were often not represented by either the Catholic world or the Protestant world - many of the Reformers later on had slaves and it is a historical fact that the Protestant Reformation and the Inquisition both indirectly influenced the development of the Transatlantic Slave Trade ...in light of how in different nations, religious persecution by Catholics of Protestant sects, Protestant persecution of Catholics, and the Spanish Inquisition of Jews and other non-Christians led people to migrate to the New World to escape religious persecution and many Christians believed that the conversion of the indigenous population to Christianity was imperative ....some in Africa converting others to the beliefs of the Reformers by force and leading to situations as we see today .[/LEFT]

We see how Dutch missionaries were active in trying to convert Taiwan's population to Christianity - in light of how Protestant missionaries established schools where Biblical religion and the Dutch language were taught - and by 1650, the Dutch had converted 5,900 of the island's inhabitants to Protestant Christianity.....with he same missionary efforts also undertaken in the other Dutch territories......as missionaries were sent by the Dutch East India Company in the Far East to the Malaysians in the early seventeenth
century (alongside Indonesia) - meaning that in the Dutch controlled territories, there was clear Protestant Christian rule, and there were efforts made to evangelize the native populations. For during the era of Protestant Reformation, in the continents of Asia and Africa, British colonial rule was not yet as extensive as that of the Dutch...nor did it do as much good in promoting the Reformed faith as the Dutch.. But in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, British rule was to prove more enduring, and its effects more extensive.

And yet we already see where the Dutch Calvinists - especially in places like South Africa - were EXTREMELY uncomfortable with racial diversity (due to the Eurocentric focus) and we know what came of that when seeing the history of treatment with blacks in South Africa.since the Dutch - like the Puritans - have seen South Africa as a promised land, a New Jerusalem... ( more here and here in The Gospel According to the Marginalized - Page 71 where the "eclectic" sources of South Africa's racial ideology are examined- "Dutch neo-Calvinism, German Romanism and other issues).

• -Apartheid in South Africa: Calvin's Legacy?
• -The Pilgrim Underground: Calvinism and Apartheid
• -Calvinism, Slavery and Apartheid - theological contemplations
• -Calvinism, 1652 and Apartheid: The Development of Afrikaner

Racism and theological stances often go directly together ...

If we took their actions as indicative of what Jesus felt on the matter, then Jesus would have been as you noted a very real failure - but we understand how others can take the actions of someone and make them appear out of context when words are avoided.

It's the same with the Quran and the ways others in Islam ignored the context of it to do many things that were based primarily on greed and desire for power. Of course, there have been arguments in the opposite direction that say how one interprets the Quran can make a difference with having an Imperialistic mindset. For a good review, one can go here to Western Civilisation :: Islam's imperialist nature – never discussed, never revealed. or the following:

Conversations with History: Robert Fisk - YouTube


For more reference, there's an interesting read on the matter which I think you'd appreciate entitled Islamic Imperialism: A History . Within the book, the author ( Karsh ) argues that the Middle East's experience is the culmination of long-existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behaviour - with it being the case that foremost among these is Islam's millenarian imperial tradition. Additionally, the author explores the history of Islam's imperialism and the persistence of the Ottoman imperialist dream that outlasted World War I to haunt Islamic and Middle Eastern politics to the present day.

​

But of course, not everyone was seeking to have an Imperialist mindset with Islam - Malcolm X and his experiences with Islam come to mind when it comes to the ways others advocated Islam in a peaceful manner.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The professor was quite correct in observing that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all "Abrahamic" faiths and all religions "of the book". There being only one God, all who worship God are worshipping the same God albeit that different faiths might view that one God in different ways and know that God by different names. I regard her attempt to exhibit solidarity with her Muslim fellow citizens by wearing a hijab to be a compassionate and very Christian action. I also know that many of my fellow Christians will feel very differently.

There have actually been other scholars noting some of the same things as she has when seeing God's working in other cultures and religions in light of the work of Christ Jesus/Salvation found in Him. Amos Yong is one of the people who always challenges me, as shared before here in Father Abraham /History of World Religions Map & Connections and other places:

​

Dr. Amos Yong - perhaps the most scholarly within the Pentecostal world when it comes to noting the extensive range of how the Holy Spirit moves and operates...as seen in The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh and Who is the Holy Spirit: A Walk with the Apostles (more shared here). He has also been very instrumental in showing the ways that the Holy Spirit's work has been crucial - a work that neither the Father nor the Son were designated to do - when it comes to preparing the hearts of others around the world and already working within their cultures in bringing them to Christ....more shared here in Amos Yong’s Review of “Holy Spirit, Chi, and the Other” | Grace Ji-Sun Kim ...or "Beyond the Impasse" by Amos Yong - Society of Vineyard Scholars : Society of Vineyard Scholars and Beyond the Impasse by Amos Yong - A Book Review - JR Woodward. More can be seen here as well - or here in the following:

• Ponderings on a Faith Journey: Spirit of Love (Amos Yong) -- Review

• AmosYong Whither Theological Inclusivism? The ...

​

​

The thoughts of Yong have been a blessing to see when it comes to the ways he has challenged the Church in reconsidering the role of the Holy Spirit (and being Orthodox myself, it is cool to realize where his thoughts do line up much on the subject.. - especially in regards to the Word and the Spirit being the "Two Hands" of the Father.....and seeing how extensive the concept is with seeing the Holy Spirit as Wisdom).

And with God's working within the Muslim world, it has been very fascinating and a blessing to me on where I come from.

Now to be clear, as I've seen others raise alarm the moment the professor noted agreement with Islam in serving God because of their stance on the Trinity, I think it is VERY important for all of us here to actually understand/know what Early Christianity said on the matter since the Trinity is an important concept. But to be clear, before going there, it should be noted that it has repeatedly been the case that others in Islam have NOT denied the Trinity.


Others may disagree - but I do think that there are multiple ways that Christian Trinitarianism is actually reflected well within the system of Islam and yet not understood due to the issue of language. And when understanding what's actually said in the Quran rather than going with what most Imams do with giving cultural Islamic teaching instead of what's in the text (just as it is with Christian teaching based on culture rather than scripture), it's very clear that Jesus is presented as He is....

Using the Quran to Explain the Incarnation of Jesus to Muslims - YouTube

Geoffrey Parrinder noted it well in his book entitled "Jesus in the Quran"

It's really best to see the Trinity as Radical Monotheism....and The Trinity as radical monotheism has always been a present factor for many Muslims just as it has been for Jews in Judaism when it comes to believing in Christ and yet noting their not being against the concept of the Holy Spirit or Yeshua being the same and yet seperate from the Father. And again, there's context - as it concerns how Muslim culture believe/accept the concept of a Trinity .

And to be clear, it should be noted that Muhammad's mentor and distant blood relative Waraka ibn Nawfal was a Nestorian Christian and that is the key reason behind the denouncement of the specific idea of the Trinity that Muhammad denied in 4:171 as this was a common belief among Nestorians. Of course, others say that Muhammad's uncle also had Ebionite influence and this was present in the references of Christ as a prophet (more shared here and here/here and here).

As another noted best on the matter when it comes to historical background:

In an article well worth reading about the religious practices of the Ebionites found here, author Stephen Tomkins notes, "... it sounds not unlike Islam in all those respects."

There is a reason for that. The Ebionites followed a text known as the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews. Although most scholars would say it was lost to history, it is possible that its precepts can be found today in the early suras of a text far more famous known as the Quran.

If true, this could be a fascinating study. Two of the major controversies in the early Christian church were the nature of the divinity of Jesus (how could he be both a man and God?), and the extent to which Christians were to follow Jewish practices and traditions. Although the Apostle Paul's conviction that Jesus was both fully God and fully man and that being Christian meant leaving everything Jewish behind eventually won the day, many groups disagreed. As they and their gospels were declared heretical by early Church councils, they were forced away from the Christian geographical centers of power and some of them ended up in Arabia and Yemen. Two of these were the Nestorians and the Ebionites. Although they are sometimes lumped together, they are distinct in that the Nestorians believed in the divinity of Jesus whereas the Ebionites saw him merely as a Prophet.

One difference between those declared heretics and the orthodox church was that the former often followed only one text, or gospel, rather than all the books that became the New Testament. The Ebionites followed The Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews (called by some scholars simply the Gospel of the Ebionites). It is probably a second-century compilation including passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke that emphasizes the compassion and humanity of Jesus while denying his divinity. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a man, not God, and that a presence called the Holy Spirit descended upon him at his baptism and remained with him until just before his crucifixion. They followed the dietary and health practices of the Jews and placed much emphasis on rituals such as ablution, fasting, and circumcision.

Available online studies of the Ebionites found here and here seem unaware of their continued history after persecution possibly forced them from the Levant into Arabia in the early centuries of the Christian era. There are several reasons for this historical lack of knowledge. One is the fact that the Ebionites were less significant and less known than the Nestorians, the larger Christian sect in Arabia at the time that did accept the divinity of Jesus. Another is that Christian historians typically had little access to ancient Islamic history, until recently only available in Arabic, that made scattered references to theNusraniyah (taken from the town of Nazareth, this is the Quranic word used to describe the non-orthodox Christians in Mecca at the time of Muhammad).

There is another and more significant reason. After Muhammad, Muslims paid little or no attention to the beliefs of Christians and Jews in the Arabian Peninsula other than to compare them critically to Islam. Muslims believe the Quran was revealed directly to Muhammad from Allah via the angel Gabriel. They historically had little interest in the beliefs of others, and even less interest in the possibility that their religious texts and practices influenced Muhammad and the formation of the Quran.

Muslims have placed much emphasis in creating an imaginary genealogy for Muhammad that passes through Abraham all the way back to Adam. Of more historical relevance is that Muslim scholars emphasize his lineage from his ancestor Qusay to Muhammad's grandfather Abdel Mutallib, but ignore that same lineage from Qusay to grandson Assad who was the grandfather of Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife, and Waraqa bin Naufal, the Prophet's distant uncle. The reason Muslims have deliberately ignored that side of the family is that it included relatives including Waraqa and possibly Khadijah herself who were members of the Nusraniyah.

Ancient historian Abu Faraj Al Isfahani noted in his Kitab Al Aghani that Waraqa bin Naufal converted to Nusraniyah, and biographer Ibn Ishaq describes him as a Hanif, one who believed in only one God.

Hadith compilers Bukhari and Sahih Muslim both state that Waraqa bin Naufal translated the Book of the Hebrews and the Gospel into Arabic. It is possible the book they meant was the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews.....Among the characteristics of the Ebionites was compassion for the poor and the orphaned. Waraqa bin Naufal, who was both a scholar and the leader of the Ebionites in Mecca, took a special interest in his young relative the orphaned Muhammad. He saw in him qualities of leadership, spent much time with him, and over the years taught Muhammad the Gospel of the Ebionites as well as the contents of the Torah. Waraqa bin Naufal performed Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah, and groomed Muhammad to replace him as the Ebionite spiritual leader in Mecca....The influence of Waraqi bin Naufal upon Muhammad and his revelations continued until Waraqa died. It is not accidental that the Hadith writers note that "revelations ceased for some time" following the death of Waraqa. The reason, of course, is that Muhammad was no longer learning from his Ebionite uncle.

The presence of the Gospel of the Ebionites in the short, poetic Meccan suras with their vivid descriptions of hell and Muhammad's repeated claim that he is a Prophet just like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is something most Muslims are not allowed to even think about, at least publicly. It's much easier, and safer, to just toe the party line. I would encourage Muslims to be a little more open in their thinking and scholarship. ​

Some may be surprised by the impact of Nestorian Christians on Islam, although as they traveled far, it's not surprising. They (Nestorian Christians) were very influential in Islam in the Far East with the Mongols as well as other religions, this has been shared before here:

Before going further, There has always been significant influence of Christianity on Japanese Buddhism and its development - especially if keeping up with the Hidden Christians of Japan and other similar groups. It has never been a small thing when seeing the Nestorian influences on Early Buddhism..

But with that said, Francis Woods did an excellent presentation on the way that Buddhism and Nestorian Christianity ended up interacting over time due to the avenues of the Silk Road - showing the ways that there was both convergent evolution and influence exercised by both on one another in their developments in certain areas.

.....
Some of the things she noted are echoed by Dr. Martin Palmer in what he has noted on Nestorian Steele .....

Moreover, as it concerns Prince Shōtoku Taishi (the First Great Patron of Buddhism in Japan and Imperial Regent of Japan in Early 7th Century) and
his Contribution to Buddhism in Japan, I appreciate what another noted in their review entitled Prince Shotoku and Ancient Christianity (by Arimasa Kubo ):

A history book records that in 578 AD Mar Celghis , a Nestorian, and his family came from a “western land” to China and settled at Lintao, a about 500 km west of Changan. That is to say that Nestorians already came to China more before 600 AD. Professor Sakae Ikeda of Kyoto University, who is a Nestorian scholar and also a Hata family scholar writes a Nestorian named Mar Toma served Prince Shotoku at his side around 600 AD. Mar Toma means “Master Thomas” in Aramaic, and is the same name as Apostle Thomas. He was believed to be a leader of the Nestorians who came to Japan at the time of Prince Shotoku. So, Christianity was already in Japan at the time of Prince Shotoku. I believe it came to Japan earlier than this. There is a proof that leads us to believe it came no later than the fourth century. ....There are many myth associated with who Prince Shotuku really like. However, after several hundred years after Prince Shotoku passed away, adoration for Prince Shotoku swelled to bear many legends regarding him. And strangely enough, we see evidences of the stories of Nestorian amd the Anciient Christianity believed by the Hatas might have been appropriated into the legends of Prince Shotoku. Prince Shotoku is said to be the “Savior Bodhisattva” who was born in a stable. That is to say that he was a kind of savior. Prince Shotoku was called “Prince Umayado (Stable),” Umayado means a stable....It is normally considered derogatory to use a word such as “stable” in calling a person of noble birth and it should be avoided. However, the “Prince Umayado (Stable) was used as an honorific title. Dr. Kunitake Kume speculates that the Christian story that “Mary born Christ in a stable” was incorporated into Prince Shotoku’s legends. There are no one but two: Jesus and Prince Shotoku who were born in a stable among the saints in the world. That is not all. In fact the story of the birth of Prince Shotoku and that of the birth of Jesus Christ are in reality are very similar to the details of sequence of the stories. The author of “Buddhism and Nestorianism in the Japanese History,” Akinori Tomiyama, states as follows: “In mid .Heian era, at the time Michizane Sugahara was watching the moon in exile, there are evidences that intellectuals in Kyoto were reading the ‘Book of Luke’ (the Gospel according to Luke). It can be proven indirectly by ‘Legends and the Record of Prince Shotoku’ (917) which was believed to be written by Kanesuke Fujiwara. That is to say that there the birth story of Jesus, the ‘Book of Luke’ 1:26~2:21 is written exactly in the same sequence as the birth story of Prince Shotoku.” So, he describes it in details. Also, when you look at the legends concerning Prince Shotoku, we notice there are many other stories that remind us of the Biblical story. According to a legend, the “Savior Bodhisattva” appeared in the dream of Empress Kanjin, mother of Prince Shotoku, and prophesied the birth of Prince Shotoku. Similarly in the Bible, an archiangel Gabriel appeared in front of Mary and foretold the birth of Jesus. The other legend says that Saint Nichira, a Paekche, worshipped Prince Shotoku calling him the “Savior Bodhisattva.” But as it turned out, he was later assassinated. This indeed remind us of a story in the Bible that John the Baptist worshipped Jesus calling him the “Savior” but later he was assassinated.....

Masanori Tomiyama also writes as follows: In the “Book of Daigo ‘Legends and the Record of Prince Shotoku’ (13th Century) not only contains the resurrection story of Prince Shotoku, but the composition of the whole book appears to have copied after the “Book of John.” This gives a credence to the fact that an entire translation not an abridged version of the Bible might have been available in Japan.” That is to say that the story of resurrection of Christ in the “Gospel According to John” might had been incorporated into the legend of Prince Shotoku. Regarding the other legends of Prince Shotoku, he writes as follows: “For example, as something to remind us of the ‘Book of Matthew’ 25:34 and thereafter, there is a story of Prince giving the clothing and food to a starved at Mount Kataoka. Subsequent to the event, the starved man died and buried, but he resurrected several days later and only his clothing was said to be left on his coffin. This story from the ‘Chronicles of the Japan’ reminds us of the same vein of thought as the ‘Book of John’ 20:1~10.” Jesus taught us that if anyone gives food and clothing to a starved, he will be included in salvation; it is same as giving them to Christ himself. Also, the Bible says that when Christ died, buried, and after he resurrected only his clothing was left at his tomb. Prince Shotoku is also respected as the “founder of carpentry” and treated as the “protector of carpenters.” Among the carpenter there is even a “Guild of Prince.” Similarly, Jesus’ profession was carpenter. Shinran and Nestorian Philosophy As you can see legends about Prince Shotoku in later periods include many of those that were Christian origins. This is due to the fact that there were people who spread the story of Christ from the ancient times in Japan. Christianity came to Japan in early days of Japan. Its thinking was incorporated, or in protest to it, there were people who tried to make Prince Shotoku the Messiah. Perhaps, this was a reason behind the legend of Prince Shotoku among the people. Later, the founder of the True Pure Land sect of Buddhism, Shinran, made 115 hymns of Japanese translation of praise entitled, ‘Praise of the Great King Asan Prince Shotoku.’ Prince Shotoku who is recited there is the exact Japanese translation of ‘Legends and the Record of Prince Shotoku’ by Kanesuke Sugawara. “Christ”, who was hidden there, must have given great influence upon the faith formation of Shinran......

....Prince Shotoku built the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji (Four Devas) temple in Osaka. There was the welfare facility called “Shiko-in” attached to it. They are four institutions: “Seyaku-in” (pharmacy where free dispensation of medicine is available), “Ryobyo-in” (free hospital, clinic), “Hiden-in” (Sanctuary for those with no relatives), and “Keiden-in” (Sanctuary of religious, arts, and music studies). Prince Shotoku was the first one to begin the large scale social works, philanthropic, welfare works in Japan. Japanese Buddhist scholars praise Prince Shotoku for starting these philanthropic welfare works first in Japan that were heretofore not practiced by Buddhists in China nor in the Korean Peninsula in those days. However, these did not come from the Buddhist philosophy. Observing China and the Korean Peninsula of those days, their Buddhism was a guardian Buddhism for the state; it was far apart from salvation of individuals. You may think Mahayana Buddhism has the philosophy of “mercy.” But Buddhist scholars state that the philosophy of mercy was not implemented as a pragmatic work in ancient China nor in the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out that these facilities such as “Keiden-in,” “Seyaku-in,” “Ryobyo-in,” and “Hiden-in” are identical to those built by Nestorians all over the Silk Road. Nestorians built many facilities like these in Mongol and China. They worked unselfishly by building free schools, pharmacies, sanatoriums, orphanages, and hospitals ...They did not only preach the Gospel, but they also stressed philanthropic and welfare works. Due to their work, their Nestorianism penetrated into people early on.

....Why did Prince Shotoku carry on the works of the Nestorians in Japan? It is because there were Nestorians by the side of Prince Shotoku. And their advice influenced greatly Prince Shotoku. Professor Sakae Ikeda of Kyoto University writes that the first person who built an orphanage in Japan was a Nestorian named Raka. A Legend of Prince Shotoku: Borrowing from the story of Aaron’s staff [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji, to which Prince Shotoku built “Keiden-in,” “Seyaku-in,” “Ryobyo-in,” and “Hiden-in” nearby, is now a Buddhist temple. However, this temple has a remarkable feature that cannot be seen at a normal temple. The entrance to this temple is no other than the great torii (gateway) of a Shinto shrine. Moreover, the torii was there since the time of Prince Shotoku. Though, it was made of wood at the time of Prince Shotoku not a present stone built. When I asked a Buddhist priest about the temple, he replied: “Once upon a time, since Prince Shotoku prayed to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno before battles this temple was built.” But, there is “Tamatsukuri Inari (god of harvest) Shrine” immediately nearby. According to the shrine history, Prince Shotoku prayed not to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno but to a god of the shrine. Here, too, we see an evidence of the Buddhist fabricating the history. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji temple used to be a Shinto shrine. Also, according to the shrine history of Tamatsukuri Inari Shrine, Prince Shotoku made a pilgrimage to the shrine before battles and prayed as follows: “If we are to win this battle, let a bud grow on this branch.” And he inserted a chestnut branch. Then, it is said that it sprouted a bud. That was a sign that a god was with him. This story, too, is very similar to the story of “a bud sprouted on the High Priest Aaron’s staff” of the Old Testament isn’t it? It was a sign that God was with Aaron. (Numbers 17: 5~8)Why did Prince Shotoku carry on the works of the Nestorians in Japan? It is because there were Nestorians by the side of Prince Shotoku. And their advice influenced greatly Prince Shotoku. Professor Sakae Ikeda of Kyoto University writes that the first person who built an orphanage in Japan was a Nestorian named Raka. A Legend of Prince Shotoku: Borrowing from the story of Aaron’s staff [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji, to which Prince Shotoku built “Keiden-in,” “Seyaku-in,” “Ryobyo-in,” and “Hiden-in” nearby, is now a Buddhist temple. However, this temple has a remarkable feature that cannot be seen at a normal temple. The entrance to this temple is no other than the great torii (gateway) of a Shinto shrine. Moreover, the torii was there since the time of Prince Shotoku. Though, it was made of wood at the time of Prince Shotoku not a present stone built. When I asked a Buddhist priest about the temple, he replied: “Once upon a time, since Prince Shotoku prayed to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno before battles this temple was built.” But, there is “Tamatsukuri Inari (god of harvest) Shrine” immediately nearby. According to the shrine history, Prince Shotoku prayed not to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno but to a god of the shrine. Here, too, we see an evidence of the Buddhist fabricating the history. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji temple used to be a Shinto shrine. Also, according to the shrine history of Tamatsukuri Inari Shrine, Prince Shotoku made a pilgrimage to the shrine before battles and prayed as follows: “If we are to win this battle, let a bud grow on this branch.” And he inserted a chestnut branch. Then, it is said that it sprouted a bud. That was a sign that a god was with him. This story, too, is very similar to the story of “a bud sprouted on the High Priest Aaron’s staff” of the Old Testament isn’t it? It was a sign that God was with Aaron. (Numbers 17: 5~8)...

....I stated that there were many Christians such as Nestorians, the Hatas (ancient Christians who came from the Central Aaia) around Prince Shotoku, and under their influence he started the philanthropic and welfare work. In the world, Prince Shotoku is generally considered as the “central figure of the Japanese Buddhism” and is responsible for spreading Buddhism in Japan. In conclusion, I believe it is mistaken. Prince Shotoku, in fact, had the same philosophy and religion (Christian Shintoism) as the Hatas. But Buddhism later became a kind of Japanese “national religion” and began to rule Japan autocratically. At that time, Prince Shotoku was given a new identity as the “central figure of Japanese Buddhism” and the “great contributor to Buddhism.” Firstly, the whole family and relatives of Prince Shotoku were murdered by Buddhists. Had Prince Shotoku been the central figure of Buddhism, why did Buddhists murder his whole family and relatives? Also, Prince Shotoku himself appears to be assassinated. Since Prince Shotoku, in those days, held the position next to the emperor, it was natural to spend several months of “mogari,” a ceremony for the repose of the soul. However, the record shows little or no period of “mogari” for Prince Shotoku. It appears that he was buried immediately. It was same in the case of Emperor Sushun who was murdered by Buddhists. He, too, was buried immediately without having a period of “mogari.” In order to appease a vengiful spirit, set himself up as a great person In those days, there was a belief system among the people that when an innocent was murdered he would become a “vengeful spirit.” So, it was necessary to quickly put the lid on the coffin and seal it. Also, in those days, there was a thought that the best way to appease the vengeful spirit was to set himself up as a great person. They thought if a person was thanked and adored as a great individual even a vengeful spirit would be appeased. So, for those who murdered Prince Shotoku, the quickest and easies way to protect themselves from the vengeful spirit was to set himself as a great person. That is to set Prince Shotoku as the “central figure of Japanese Buddhism” and the “great contributor to Buddhism” and have people venerate him. They thought that by doing so the vengeful spirit would be appeased and Buddhism would spread. For them it was two birds with one stone solution. I do not have enough space here to write about this in detail. I recommend for those who are interested to read the “Sealed Ancient History of Japanese and Jewish 2, Volume of Buddhism and Nestorianism."...

....Prince Shotoku went after his demise to “Tenju-koku” = heaven Back in 16th century, during the Azuchi Momoyama period, Ujisato Gamau (1556~95), the lord of Aizu, became Christian as a result of missionary work of Ukon Takayama. He was a Christian lord with the baptized name of Leo, but the Buddhist world of Aizu advertised his as an ardent Buddhist. When the Buddhist influence becomes strong, all the past great men become the great contributors to Buddhism. It has been repeated many times in Japanese history. So, we believe that Prince Shotoku’s case was no exception. After the demise of Prince Shotoku, an embroidery picture that depicts the “Tenju-koku” where the Prince went still exists at the Chugu-ji temple in Nara. This was embroidered by Kuma Hata who was commissioned by Princess Taratsume Tachibana thinking of the Prince. It is the picture called the “Tenju-koku Mandara (Mandala) Shuchomei.” If you look at it, it is obvious that the concept of Paradise other than Buddhism coexists. Masanori Tomiyama, who studied this aspect, writes, “I believe that the ’Tenju-koku Mandara Shuchomei’ undoubtedly means heaven of Jesus.” “’Tenju-koku’ where Prince Shotoku died and went to is the oldest concept of Paradise in Japan. This “Tenju-koku” or “Heaven” probably influenced the Pure Land concept of later Japanese Buddhism....

....Prince Shotoku himself was a man who must have 5 had a thought of this “Tenju-koku.” Also, there is a shrine called “Kamei-doh” at the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji temple built by Prince Shotoku. It existed since the time of Prince Shotoku. The faith that is practiced there is very similar to that of the faith of the Bethesda Pond (if you enter the pond while water is being stirred, you will be healed)....Prince Shotoku is a central figure who convinced many Japanese that “Japan is a Buddhist nation.” However, upon careful investigation, Prince Shotoku was more involved in Christianity rather than Buddhism. Later when Buddhism controlled Japan like the national religion, the real image of Prince Shotoku was buried forever. Then, he became the “central figure of Japanese Buddhism.” Nevertheless, we should find the truth in the important part of the Japanese history. Christianity is never a new religion that came recently to Japan or a western religion. It is the most precious faith that our ancestors also believed.​

Additionally, as another noted wisely from one prominent Buddhist resource:

​

THE JESUS SUTRAS
Some Early Morning Thoughts on What Might Have Been and Perhaps What Could Yet Be

James Ishmael Ford

11 January 2015

First Unitarian Church
Providence, Rhode Island

Text

Compassionate Father, Radiant Son,
Pure Wind King – three in one.

Supreme King, Will of Ages,
Compassionate joyous lamb
Loving all who suffer
Fearless as you strive for us
Free us of the karma of our lives
Bring us back to our original nature
Delivered from all danger.

Great Teacher: I stand in awe of the Father
Great Teacher: I am awed by the Holy Lord
Great Teacher: I am speechless before the King of Dharma
Great Teacher: I am dazzled by the Enlightened Mind
Great Teacher: You who do everything to save us.

Praise of the Three Sacred Powers

Okay, I’m a sucker for those historical “what if” kind of things. You know, what if the Spanish Armada defeated the English, or what if the South had won the Civil War, or the Nazi’s the Second World War. Decades later, I’m still haunted from reading Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle about that last what if. People have been telling me for years I have to read Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Years of Rice and Salt, where the plague takes away ninety nine percent of Europe’s population instead of a third, leaving the world to be shaped by Muslim, Chinese, and indigenous American cultures.

Of course my favorites of such things are religious, or, at least have a religious thread. Kind of obvious, I guess. Which I’m sure is in part why people keep pointing me to that Years of Rice and Salt. And, so, of course, why one of my favorite books in recent years is Michael Chabon’s The Yiddish Policemen’s Union, which posits a world where Israel didn’t happen. There are tons of them, and I could go on about them at length.

However, today I’d like to hold up the intriguing realities of Eastern and Western religious encounter and speculate just a little on some of the “what ifs” that with just a few things going one way rather than another could have left us with a very different Christianity, or, at least, a very interesting and vibrant alternative possibility to what has become normative in the West.

I suspect most of us here are familiar with the fact that the story of the Buddha made its way West in the early centuries of the Church, and the Buddha even ended up a saint in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as Josaphat of Sts Barlaam and Josaphat. Their feast, admittedly not celebrated so much since the historical connections were made, is celebrated on the 27th of November for the Romans, and on the 26th of August in the Orthodox calendar. So, it doesn’t take a lot of heavy lifting intellectually to figure the favor was returned. And it was.

A lot happened on that famous Silk Road that joined East and West.

In 1625 workers digging near a temple discovered a large stone monument. Local intellectuals began to examine it and discovered it recorded the story of a long lost Christian mission to China. Written in Chinese and Syriac it recounted the early Seventh century mission of Bishop Alopen and the establishment of the “Luminous Religion,” a Chinese branch of the Church of the East, sometimes called the Nestorian Church. What’s particularly interesting is how the tablet’s Christianity doesn’t quite line up with Nestorian orthodoxy in some interesting ways. The trinity, for instance, is mentioned, as is the incarnation, but there’s no reference to a crucifixion or resurrection. It was also clear that the Luminous Religion had synthesized with both Buddhism and most of all with Taoism. All so tantalizing, but just this one large stone monument left as testimony to something long gone.

It appeared that during the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution in the middle of the Ninth Century, while it knocked Buddhism back on its heels, it also wiped out several smaller religious communities, including the Luminous Religion, which apparently the authorities considered a Buddhist heresy.

So, what the Luminous Religion actually was remained a delicious hint at something, but no one was sure of what precisely. Then on the 25th of June, in 1900 a Daoist monk stumbled onto a cache of manuscripts hidden in a cave near Dunhuang, an ancient city along that Silk Road. This discovery ranks with finding the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, and in fact in some ways exceeds them in importance. It proved a treasure trove of documents, some fifty thousand of them, in fifteen different languages, including at least one language that has otherwise been lost to the sands of history. Some of the Daoist and Buddhist texts are priceless, deeply re-orienting a world of scholarship. The cache also included the oldest printed book in the world, an edition of the Buddhist Diamond Sutra.

And it included texts from that long gone Luminous Religion, what have come to be called the Jesus Sutras. Sutra means thread, and is used in the sense of our shared Indo-European English’s “suture,” a binding thread. In Buddhism a Sutra is a sacred text. And while Christian, the shifts from normative Christianity are such that many feel “Jesus Sutra” a more accurate characterization of these texts.

Now the best single source about the religion and its texts for us is Martin Palmer’sThe Jesus Sutras: Rediscovering the Lost Scrolls of Taoist Christianity. A scholarly study, although it is not without its critics, many of whom suggest he slants his translations in ways that are not warranted by the texts themselves, making the Buddhist and Daoist influences larger than is warranted. Me, I’m going for his version whole hog.

There are many significant features of this Luminous Religion. One that caught me quickly is the blending of Guanyin, who had already been transformed from an indigenous Chinese goddess into the Buddhist archetype of compassion, reshapes once again with Mary, becoming a heartful image that many of us who’ve experienced both Buddhism and Christianity, including me, have also found ourselves. I’m also taken with the integration of Christian and Buddhist liturgical practices, and most important of all I’m just astonished at the “new” Christian texts of the Luminous Religion, those Jesus Sutras using Buddhist and Daoist imagery and idioms, and with all that transforming Christianity into something for me now very exciting and compelling. Its worth noting how this also happened earlier in Chinese religious history when Indian Buddhism came to China and began translating its texts into Chinese using Daoist terminology, and birthing out of that, that whole new Buddhism that we call Zen.

The Luminous Religion was, as it were, innocent of Augustine’s terrible idea of original sin, instead embraced the loveliness of the world, and while celebrating the divine origins of their teacher, consistently emphasized his teachings as the truly important thing, describing a holy way of life. They embraced both reincarnation and karma. My friend the independent scholar Adrian Worsfold summarizes the Luminous Religion’s followers as “vegetarians, (who) promoted non-violence, charity, sexual equality, care for nature, and were (nearly uniquely in their world strongly) anti-slavery.” And, while it continues the Trinitarian formula for baptism, with the change of calling the spirit, “pure wind,” the Luminous Religion’s teachings otherwise appear to be pretty Unitarian, emphasizing “salvation by character.” Well Unitarian if Unitarianism emerged out of Christianity, and Buddhism, and Taoism streaming together as a new version of the ancient Watercourse Way.

So, on the one hand a Westerner can find a lot easily recognizable in the Jesus Sutras, although often with a twist. For instance the Ten Commandments, or here “covenants.”

The first covenant of God is that anything that exists and does evil will be punished, especially if they do not respect the elderly. The second covenant is to honor and care for elderly parents. Those who do this will be true followers of Heaven’s Way. The third covenant is to acknowledge we have been brought into existence through our parents. Nothing exists without parents. The fourth covenant is that anybody who understands the precepts should know to be kind and considerate to everything, and to do no evil to anything that lives. The fifth covenant is that any living being should not take the life of another living being, and should also teach others to do likewise. The sixth covenant is that nobody should commit adultery, or persuade anyone else to do so. The seventh covenant is not to steal. The eighth covenant is that nobody should covet a living man’s wife, or his lands, or his palace, or his servants. The ninth covenant is not to let your envy of somebody’s good wife, or son, or house or gold, lead you to bear false witness against them. The tenth covenant is only to offer to God that which is yours to give.
And on the other hand there are teachings that more obviously echo the ancient wisdoms of Buddhism and Daoism, like the Four Essential Laws of Christian Dharma.

The first is no wanting. If your heart is obsessed with something, it manifests in all kinds of distorted ways. Distorted thoughts are the root of negative behavior…
The second is no doing. Don’t put on a mask and pretend to be what you’re not…
The effort needed to hold a direction is abandoned, and there is simply action and reaction. So walk the Way of No Action. The third is no piousness. And what that means
is not wanting to have your good deeds broadcast to the nation. Do what’s right to bring people to the truth
but not for your own reputation’s sake. So anyone who teaches the Triumphant Law, practicing the Way of Light to bring life to the truth, will know peace and happiness in company. But don’t talk it away. This is the Way of No Virtue. The fourth is no absolute. Don’t try to control everything. Don’t take sides in arguments about right and wrong. Treat everyone equally, and live from day to day. It’s like a clear mirror that reflects everything anyway: Green or yellow or in any combination -
It shows everything, as well as the smallest of details. What does the mirror do? It reflects without judgment.

The Luminous Religion calls us to a middle path, a Buddhist, Daoist, Christian middle way. It calls us into a deep investigation of our own lives, and it calls us into a community of mutual accountability.

Martin Palmer tells us, “The Jesus Sutras offer salvation from what we have made of ourselves – salvation from karma or (if you rather) from the burden of ‘original sin’ – because beneath the layers of our inadequate actions lies an original nature that is good. These spiritual, theological, psychological, philosophical, and ethical insights are in the Jesus Sutras, often beautifully and simply portrayed in accessible images, stories, and concepts.”

So fascinating, so wonderful. And so sad they were lost.

However Palmer adds how, in fact, they only await our discovery, yours and mine. He invites us to embark out on our own Silk Road, our own journey of discovery.

Palmer concludes his book with an observation. “After a thousand years, the Jesus Sutras have returned to us to shed light on the past, speak to our present, and, possibly, help shape our future.”

Here I find myself thinking of that “what if,” and realize in fact the door isn’t closed, the door is wide open.

We find something wondrous being presented. For those who have the eyes to see it, ears to hear it.

We want something different? We want to change the world?

Well, we start with ourselves.

We need to let go of what we thought was so, what had to be so, and allow other possibilities to emerge.

And so an invitation:

Take a walk along the Silk Road for yourself.

And dig a little.

Read. Talk. And most of all, pay attention.

You never know what treasure might be revealed.

You might even find what if becomes what is.

And wouldn’t that be a miracle?

Amen.​

But with that said, many Muslims have come to faith in Yeshua due to others presenting the Gospel via the Quran when it comes to examining how the Quran itself already had partial revelation within it showing that Isa was always seen as greater than Muhammad - that He was the Spirit of God, Eternal and the one who was the greatest revelation. Again, according to what many Imans say, they actually don't speak based on what the Quran actually says and thus they have cultural Islam rather than Quranic Islam - in the same way that others have cultural Christianity rather than Biblical Christianity. And it's very effective..

In the Qur’an, Jesus is twice referred to as the “Word of God,” a title that many consider to be the highest title given to any person in the book. While describing Jesus’ miraculous conception, the Qur’an states: “The angels said, “Mary, God gives you good news of a word from him [God]…’” (Surah 3:45). The second passage brings this truth to greater light: “People of the book, don’t exaggerate in your religion, and only say the truth about God. Truly the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is God’s messenger and his word which he sent down on Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in God and his messengers and do not say three. Stop it. It is better for you. God is one God. Far be it from him to have a boy. He owns what is in the heavens and the earth. God is a sufficient trustee.” (4:171).

One can notice the titles given to Jesus. Each echoes biblical truth regarding his identity. He is the Messiah (Jn. 4:25-6), the Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3), God’s Messenger/Prophet (Mt. 13:57, Heb. 3:1), the Word of God, and a spirit from God (1 Co. 15:45). Many Muslims/others from Muslim background have noted this when sharing plainly on the ways Isa was always meant to be superior to Muhammad - with many noting that others need to follow what Christians have noted when it comes to acknowledging that the Messiah is truly the Son of God sent to redeem mankind....even though their brothers/sisters may've not had the best understanding on all points. For them, During the daily salat, they refrain from saying the shahadah unless they omit the second phrase, "and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah" and instead insert "and Isa (Jesus) is the Eternal Word of Allah" or "and Isa (Jesus) is the Sovereign Lord." They acknowledge that only the Bible is the Word of God and that the Qur'an, while containing beautiful Arabic and important insights into Arab culture, has no authority over the Bible.

Additionally, they note how in the Qur'an, Jesus is greater than Muhammad...evidenced by how Jesus' titles in the Qur'an are greater - noting several honorary titles such as titles of Messiah, the Word of God, the Spirit of God (Sura 4:169-71), the Speech of Truth (Sura 19:34-35), a Sign unto Men, and Mercy from God (Sura 19:21). For even in the Qur'an, Jesus lived a life that is much more extraordinary than Muhammad. Jesus' miracles in the Qur'an are greater, for the Qur'an affirms several miraculous aspects of Christ's life....such as the virgin birth of Christ (Sura 19:16-21; 3:37-45)....that Christ performed miracles (Sura 3:37-45; 43: 63-65)....the prophethood of Christ (19:29-31)...and it also affirms that Christ did not die but was raised up to heaven by God (4:158; 19:33) - for that which is LIFE ITSELF cannot be conquered by death - while in contrast, according to the Qur'an, there is very little, if anything, supernatural regarding the life of Muhammad. .

But again, it all goes back to how one is trained growing up seeing the Lord - and if explaining it the right way, it makes more than enough sense..

​

For Muslim Background Believers, they may go back to Mosque with family and appreciate the services - appreciating the background they came from/the things God showed them in it (even though it was incomplete and partial revelation) and still remembering how Isa is the Messiah. Some who came out of Islam may ask "Why are even appreciating anything you learned from your past? You have Christ now!!!!" - and yet others disagreeing realize that just because certain things were used wrongly doesn't mean you can't appreciate it. .......for many were able to come to trust in the Lord after seeing things in the Quran or their background in various ways the Lord used to help them see how Isa Al Masih was the Messiah - they didn't have to forsake all aspects of who they were in order to serve the Lord.....

And indeed, there are a lot of things which others do not understand because they have no idea how Middle Eastern language, culture or customs work. As said elsewhere:

Very true - and it's sadder whenever others may not realize that they do end up making Christianity out to look foolish. t's bad enough whenever others seem to be ignorant of the etymology of words and the basic reality that Arabic Christians have been using the term "Allah" to describe God Almighty for centuries - long before the development of Islam. But to make war on the issue and go forward built on that ignorance of what terms actually mean to people while demonizing them....that is not in line with scripture. It may be based in good intentions or zeal - but it is still a lack of wisdom (Proverbs 19:2).

For the 10 to 12 million Arab Christians today - they have been calling God ‘Allah’ in their Bibles, hymns, poems, writings, and worship for over nineteen centuries. Whether folks like it or not, what an insult to them when we tell them not to use this word ‘Allah’! - especially with all of the things they have been enduring, be it in Lybia, Syria, Iraq or other nations. Just as I do not stop using the word "God" in English because many false sects also use that same word (and the term "God" itself came from pagan roots ), I do not need to stop using the word "Allah" just because the Qur'an uses the same word - AND ultimately, I need to show Muslims the true identity of Allah in the Bible, instead of fighting with them over semantics, and therefore never getting to the real issues.

​

Of course what's occurring in Malaysia with the long term battles (more in New controversy erupts over use of word 'Allah' by Malaysia Christians, Ecumenical News and Malaysia Catholics allowed to call God 'Allah' again. Why the fuss? - CSMonitor.com and "There is no God but Allah:" An Indonesian-Christian Reading on Miroslav Volf’s “Allah: A Christian Response” | Hans Harmakaputra - Academia.edu and http://www.eccmsia.org/articles/why-i-use-allah-a-laymans-perspective) is unfortunate when it comes to certain Muslims in political positions trying to keep other Christians from using the term "Allah" to describe God. Not all Muslims have been in agreement, just as not all are in agreement with the actions of extremists and those promoting terrorism - but many take that situation with what's happening there and assume "See!!! Even Muslims know that you can't be a Christian and call God Allah!!" ....and yet that'd be no different than claiming "See!! Even Christians understand that Blacks are inferior!!!" when it came to many claiming Christ but being ignorant of the Scriptures and what CHrist said when it came to the KKK, burning crosses and Jim Crow/Black Codes being used against others.....

... culturally speaking "Oh, my Allah!" or "Oh, my Vishnu!" has no acceptance on any level so when spoken it is spoken as a deliberate attempt perhaps to expose our ignorance of the Christian slur or because of a direct attack against whatever religion associated with the named god. However the difference with "Oh, my G--!" is that it has wide acceptance in our culture and when spoken most have no identity with any meaning and literally say it because it is an expression with no connection to Christianity. Expressions are set in culture and we cannot just replace the words in them just because we don't like the words because if we do the meaning of the expression is lost and we will just leave people scratching their heads wondering what we are talking about.

You mention "Allah" even yourself assuming that I understand that as the god of Islam. The Christian Bible in Arabic uses the name "Allah" where the English uses "God" so if I was a Christian whose first language was Arabic than how am I to know the difference? "Allah" is actually a better representation of the name of God then "God" is. Portions of the Bible are written in Aramaic and in Aramaic "God" is "Elahh" which corresponds to the Hebrew "Elowahh" all translated in English as "God". The name "God" has more pagan roots than "Allah" does. I agree that today it is represented differently and somewhat disconnected with its roots but this expose that cultural ignorance is important in determining a words meaning and if a culture disconnects a word's actual meaning and applies its own than their applied meaning is what is significant not its actual meaning. This goes back to Christian substitutes using "goodness" or "gosh" in replace of "God" but those words have the same meaning we are just ignorant to this and because it is accepted in Christian communities we are fine with it satisfied that there is no sin.

This is the point I am making... to a Christian we speak a different language, we use the same words but the words have different meaning. To a non-christian the same words may be disconnected from the meaning that we as Christians associated them with. The non-Christian uses them but should they be accused with using God's name in vain when they don't have any understanding of the word?

 

[talitha]

So do you think that Arab-speaking Christians who worship "Allah" are going to hell?

When I put "Allah" in quotes, I was referring to the being that has taken the place made for him/it when Islam was invented.

I go to a parish where I hear Arabic every Sunday. I can tell you right now, our understanding of God is not the same as Islam. Islam rejects Christ as God.

That's right. It's unfortunate that the same word is used. Makes it confusing. I think it might have been intentional on Muhamed's part.

The more this thread goes on the more you can see how 'One True Wayism' really is detrimental to ones spiritual journey. Sure it's the first stop for many seekers, but sadly many can't move past it.

"One True Wayism" is Christianity. Welcome to Christian Forums.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The professor was quite correct in observing that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all "Abrahamic" faiths and all religions "of the book". There being only one God, all who worship God are worshipping the same God albeit that different faiths might view that one God in different ways and know that God by different names. I regard her attempt to exhibit solidarity with her Muslim fellow citizens by wearing a hijab to be a compassionate and very Christian action. I also know that many of my fellow Christians will feel very differently. That saddens me.

As it is something present in the discussion, I think it needs to be clarified (as it concerns the OP and my own stance) that differing faiths still have limitations on where they go. And I stand with the stance that not all roads lead to God - but God will meet you on ANY road.

Muslims are on the road seeking God and are the not the enemies...they are the prize..

Some of this has been shared before with regards to God's heart to reach out to Muslims and how much he has been working throughout the world, as noted before:

Shalom..


Concerning why I was writing, it was on my mind recently that the ways others reach out in evangelism are varied....and over the past couple of years, it has been astounding to see how Christ has been coming to Muslims in dreams to reveal Himself to them..in light of how many were told that they cannot believe in Isa (arabic for "Jesus"). There was actually an amazing series on the issue that one of my Eastern CHristian brothers alerted me to...a Protestant work entitled "More than Dreams."

More Than Dreams 1/5 - Ali (Christian Documentary)
More Than Dreams 2/5 - Dini (Christian Documentary)
More Than Dreams 3/5 - Khalil (Christian Documentary)​

More Than Dreams 4/5 - Khosrow (Christian Documentary)
More Than Dreams 5/5 - Mohammed (Christian .Documentary _)..​

The video series deals with the subject of how there has been a phenomenon that has been recurring in the Muslim world for decades, as it concerns men and women without any knowledge of the Gospel and without any contact with Christians that have been forever transformed after experiencing dreams and visions of Jesus Christ. The video series goes through five stories of former Muslims who now know Jesus as their Savior, recreated in docu-drama format. Its is apart of evangelistic material often used when witnessing to those of Islamic background...and the series has been produced in their original languages with English subtitles.

These are what the main stories are about within the video series:

• Khalil was a radical Egyptian terrorist who was transformed when Jesus appeared to him and changed his heart. (Arabic, 29 minutes)
• Mohammed is a herdsman in Nigeria who found the deep love of Christ. He survived various attempts on his life by his father and eventually led his father to faith in Christ. (Hausa, 46 minutes)

• Dini is an Indonesian teenager who became a Christian on a night that Muslims individualize their prayers to Allah. She was immediately filled with peace, even as persecution began. (Indonesian, 42 minutes)

• Khosrow is a young Iranian man who was depressed and without hope until he met Jesus. Now joy fills his heart. (Farsi, 30 minutes)

• Ali is a Turkish man in bondage to alcohol. While making the pilgrimage to Mecca, hoping to be freed of his addiction and be led in the way of a true Muslim, he found Christ instead. (Turkish, 40 minutes)

There are many testimonies I've heard over the years of those who are Muslims and turned to Jesus solely because of the POWER of the Holy Spirit...and many of them changed when experiencing what the Word describes of what occurs in visions when others hear the voice of the Lord audibly ( i.e. Genesis 15:1-3, Genesis 46:1-3, Numbers 12:5-7, Numbers 24:3-5, 1 Samuel 3:1-3, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1:1-3, Ezekiel 8:2-4, Ezekiel 11:23-25, Ezekiel 40:1-3, Ezekiel 43:2-4, Daniel 1:16-18, Daniel 2:18-20, Daniel 7:1-3, Daniel 8:1-3, Daniel 10:6-8, Luke 1:21-23, Acts 9:9-11, Acts 10:2-4, Acts 11:4-6, Acts 18:8-10, )
Jesus often came at people from a myriad of angles whenever it came to revealing himself....and some of them simply by fellowshipping with him had a life transforming experience.

Paul in the scriptures had the exact same experience during his own conversion, as he was stopped right in his tracks before he could go commit murder:

Acts 26:1-20
I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

19"So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven.

Job 33:14-18
For God does speak—now one way, now another— though man may not perceive it. 15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men as they slumber in their beds, 16 he may speak in their ears and terrify them with warnings, 17 to turn man from wrongdoing and keep him from pride, 18 to preserve his soul from the pit, [a] his life from perishing by the sword

​

Paul got permission to travel to Damascus to capture Christians and bring them back to Jerusalem. But God stopped him in his hurried tracks on the Damascus Road. Paul personally met Jesus and his life was never the same With Paul, he did not see a vision; he saw the Risen Christ Himself (Acts 9:1-18). Paul acknowledged Jesus, confessed his own sin, surrendered his life to Christ and resolved to obey him. For True conversion comes from a personal encounter with Jesus Christ and leads to a new life in relationship with him.

...........Whenever it comes to Christ and how the Gospel is contexualized within differing cultures/religions, my heart is to study so as to not create error....and in studying over the years, surprisngly, I was amazed at how many stereotypes I had of Muslims that were not really what was present..including things mentioned in texts such as the Quran that often get debated (i.e. Christ Death on the Cross, Christ as the Son of God, etc) and seeing how often there is a good deal of miscommunication in concepts (more discussed in #62 , #59 , #56 , #55 , #54 , #49 , #47 , #33 , #29 , #30 , #17, #10 , #1) . Many Muslims, if asking them, had no issue noting that Christ is the Savior--and moreover, they had no issue with saying that the Quran is not against the fact that He indeed died and yet lived...or that Isa was the Messiah who'd save the world by His sacrifice. For others who trust the Messiah and yet remain within an Islamic context, it's a big deal for them to remember the examples within scripture, be it with Joseph in Egypt or Esther in Persia or Daniel in Babylon and Paul in his work with the unknown god ( more discussed here in #4 and #57 ). And with Muslims, there are a HOST of logical inconsistencies many people ascribe to them that really are not accurate (even though many other things aren't accurate in regards to how to see God) and that is the reason many have taken alot of issue.'

....

I think it's more than possible that Messianic Muslims exist, as I've witnessed it directly...and where I'm at currently, I think that it's more than possible that Islam itself is no different than any other religion when it comes to being incomplete in revelation apart from who Christ is---and that even if they may have areas where things are off, there are many other things that were revelations from the Lord. Partial truth, if one wishes to call it such, that was given as a foreshadow of what was to come later...or what had already come (as Islam came after the Church began) and yet had not yet been fully understood by the people that hadn't encountered it yet. If aware of something known as Ancient Faith Radio, they did a series on the issue of how in some cultures, it seems that they were already being prepared for the presentation of the Gospel…with it being established that GOD was at work in all cultures far before any others with revelation of what the Hebrews had came around. The radio brodcast from "Ancient Faith Radio" was on a book entitled “Christ the Eternal Tao”…and for more info, one can go online/look up "Christ the Eternal Tao - Ancient Faith Radio". I thought it was interesting to see from an Eastern Christian perspective how the Tao Te Ching is presented as an imperfect, incomplete foreshadowing of what would later be revealed by Christ.

And when looking at scripture, it does seem that the same dynamics are present. In example, Cornelius in Acts 10-11 comes immediately to mind, as he had no idea about Jesus and yet scriptures notes how his prayers/devout actions (i.e. gifts to the poor, kindness, etc) were like prayers before the Lord --and the Lord sent full revelation to the man via Peter. But prior to that, was Cornelius lost/destined for Hell due to never hearing of Christ? I'm not certain...

I'm also reminded of Acts 18:24-28, where its clear that Apollos only knew of the Baptism of John...suggesting that He had not heard at all of the Baptism which Jesus commanded after His resurrection in Matthew 28:19....and which began to be administered to all believers in Christ on and after that day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12, etc). Therefore, Apollos KNOWLEDGE of the Christian Gospel must have been deficient in SOME ways, though HE TAUGHT accurately the things concerning Jesus as fare as he knew them.. He certainly knew about Jesus' life and teachings, but He may not have known about Jesus's death and resurrection...or about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. God blessed Him by sending Him others who gave more full awareness of it (Acts 19:1-20:1 ).

And likewise, IMHO, it may be said that the same is possible for many Muslims. In many ways, they could be looking at the same Christ...but with other details not present (just as the Jews had many details off from within much of rabbinical traditions/teachings and lost of information).





THus, for me....whenever I hear of Muslims being presented with the Gospel, what comes to my mind is the dynamic of Muslims who have been given greater revelation to the level of revelation that they already had been given. And when it comes to them seeing Christ via dreams within a culture that may say erroneously that He was not the Savior, part of me wonders what the implications of that may be.

.... the reality of MANY believers who were unaware of the GIFT of the Holy Spirit which the Lord had made possible thru the Atonement of Christ. Examples of such are seen in things like Acts 19:2-4 where Paul finds believers who were given ONLY the Baptism of John....but they were incomplete in God's Best for them.

Acts 19:1-6

Paul in Ephesus 1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. 4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied.
​

These believers in the Lord were COMPLETLY unware of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit----something Christ made clear was apart of the reason why He had to die (Joel 2:27-29 , John 14, John 16, Acts 2:16-18, etc)---and therefore they probably had not heard much of Jesus's Life and ministry.....and CERTAINLY not of His death and resurrection. They had evidently relocated from Palestine to Ephesus before Jesus's own ministry began...and as followers of

John, they would have known His message that the Messiah would bring the Spirit (Luke 3:16). Nonetheless, it stands to reason that the obvious issue is that they were already considered FOLLOWERS of GOD long before having full information of the details of Christ's Work/something to believe in....


The Lord truly works with others where they are at...

With that said, it needs to be understood what the Word of God says when it comes to what life is like without Christ and OUTSIDE of Christ. With what has occurred with this professor being suspended and the results that have followed, I am glad of course that greater conversation can occur within the Evangelical world on the subject since there are many differing views on the issue - and it really got exposed after seeing some of the divides that occurred during the entire fiasco with theologians like Rob Bell setting it off with his book such as "Love Wins" and then having a battle royale occur in the camp - from John Piper to Gregory Boyd and others all going at it.

Regarding salvation, I tend to lean toward the Orthodox understanding of Hell when it comes to being a literal place that others rejecting Christ will be due to their choice ...and the view C.S Lewis had when he noted in The Problem of Pain that, "The doors of Hell are locked on the inside."....that God forces no one into Hell outside of what their choices already desired since they do not want God ()

I also agree with C.S Lewis, who was an Inclusivist, when it came to noting that God judges people based on what they know.

As C.S Lewis noted best, "Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ’s body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man’s fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more. (pg. 64).

Those who don't know of Him can still make it if obedient to what they already have revealed to them (like with Cornelius the Centurion in Acts 10-11 and Romans 2 on what happens when those without the law become a law unto themselves/God judges others based on what they had available ...or Matthew 25:30 on those walking out what He says/it impacting the Lord and God's Mercy for others who were never truly given the REAL message of Christ after only having exposure to what wasn't true, like with Colonialism/Imperialism done in the name of God to harm others).

Again, I truly believe "Not all roads will lead you to God, but God will meet you on any road".... Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus says that those accepted at the final judgment are not the ones who claimed the proper title or belief in this life, but those who fed the hungry, welcomed the homeless, cared for the sick and visited the imprisoned. Similarly, James 1:27 claims: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”...consistent with Luke 10:25-36 on the Good Samaritan as the example of what it means to love God/neighbor and God's standard.

Of course we have to deal with Daniel 12:2 on how you ultimately have others who will rise to eternal life and others to eternal death.

I will never speak for everyone when it comes to the fate of those who perish since God's Mercy is truly extensive and there are many things which we do not know. That said, I will also not back away from the scriptures when it comes to proclaiming the Supremacy of Christ and the Kingdom of God - that Jesus is the one who the world needs and who will save the Day

-"36 “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. 38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:36).​

But because God is already working in he world, we have to go forward proclaiming what He has done and why others need to follow. Hell is nothing to play with and it is not something we should play with either - but NEITHER is the Kingdom of God and the salvation found in Christ Jesus that was supposed to be proclaimed so that others would not be destined to perish without the Lord.



For reference:

• Schaeffer vs Driscoll about Hell
  
• is hell eternal or temporary
  
• Discussion on Hell: my biggest stumbling block
  
• What sin leads unto death? Can we pray for others to be forgiven?
  
• -"John Crowder, Cosmos Reborn" (more here and here ) & & "The Universal Fatherhood of God" and Michael Heisner - The Naked Bible - The Premise
• -St Isaac the Syrian: The Scandalous Injustice of God
• St Isaac the Syrian: Preaching the Astonishing Love of God
• St Isaac the Syrian: Love and the Punishment of Evil

Also, there was a fascinating documentary on the issue that really brought the point home for me. Glad for others taking time years ago to make the documentary called "Hellbound" which was thought-provoking in giving a good summary of some of the dominant views that have been around - and what folks on all sides have been saying. Whether you agree or disagree, at least one can have a dialogue to see what Jesus said - and as far as where I stand, I believe what Jesus said when stating God's heart is for the world he died for (John 3)...that you'll have LIFE if you believe in Him (John 11:25) and lost if you don't...and take it seriously what he said when saying "when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." (John 5:25-30).

But the documentary is worth investigating since it does give excellent food for thought...

​

 

[Job8]

She shouldn't have been suspended.

If a person desires to teach in a Christian college, they are expected to uphold the beliefs of that institution. She could have resigned if she does not agree that Christianity and Islam have nothing in common. Why did she pretend to be a Christian?

 

[Job8]

The more this thread goes on the more you can see how 'One True Wayism' really is detrimental to ones spiritual journey. Sure it's the first stop for many seekers, but sadly many can't move past it.

That's where you are mistaken. Either Jesus is the end of the so-called "journey" or one can wander around for ever. Islam (the Koran) reject Jesus as God and Saviour, and also rejects His crucifixion and resurrection. He is simply a prophet inferior to Muhammad.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

Just a caution regarding both the statement of purpose for this forum and the rules of CF:

While it is fine to look to the common origins of "Abrahamic" faiths; CF defines Christianity in the words of the Nicene Creed. Such being the case, God is three persons, and saying to a god worshiped in a non trinitarian form is at odds with our statement of faith, and therefore at odds with and against our rules.

Please be mindful of this, as there have been posts in this thread that have not only pushed the outside of the envelope, but have gone so far as to imply that a non trinitarian definition of god is God.

Mark
CF Admin

 

[Gxg (G²)]

How sad that she is punished for behaving as a Christian.

You would be blessed, I believe, if investigating the following since it deals with what other Christians have been doing for sometime in engaging Muslims from a Biblical perspective:

And for other places one can go to where they can learn on how even the Qu'ran speaks of the Trinity, one can go to one place I referenced earlier:

• Maryam (19:1-63)
  | A Christian Reads The Qu'ran

IslamicDilemma
A series of lectures in Chicago about how Islam attests to the truth of Christianity
YOUTUBE.COM

More specifically, one can check out Claims of Christ in Light of Islamic Monotheism - which is the third installment of the Islamic Dilemma series given by Sam Shamoun. The dilemma explored was seeing how the New Testament Jesus is affirmed by the Qur'an and yet what Jesus preached is contradicted in Islamic teaching...and that goes to addressing how the actual text of the Qu'ran was developed.

​

People who consistently claim the Qu'ran denies the Trinity neither KNOW what the text actually says, nor do they actually deal with those who grew up Muslim and were easily able to see where the concept of the Trinity itself was always present in the Qu'ran and other texts. It was always about context and seeing what has actually been said, as I often told my grandmother (who was a part of a sect of Islam for sometime, as shared before here).

​

As noted best elsewhere:

Trinity In Islam
THE QUR'ANIC TESTIMONY OF CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM

The Qur'an testifies that Christians are monotheistic and not infidels. The following are examples of this testimony:

1. Sura al-Ankabut 29:46, "Do no argue with the people of the Book except in what is better... and say we believed in what was sent down to us and to you, and our God and your God is the same, is one." Thus, the Qur'an testifies that we Christians, "people of the Book," worship one God.

2. Sura Al Imran 3:113-114, "Among the people of the Book is a nation which recites the verses of God during the night, and they worship God and believe in Him and in the Day of Judgement, and they hasten charity." This reference clearly asserts that Christians, "people of the Book," believe in one God; they recite His book which was in their hands in Muhammad's days, and they worship the one God in their services and prayers.

3. Sura al-Ma'ida 5:82, "For sure you will find the bitterest enemies of those who believe (Muslims) are the Jews and those who do not believe in our God. And you will find the closest friends to believers to be those who said, 'We are Nazarenes,' as among them there are pastors and monks and they are not proud." It is clear that Nazarenes are no polytheists, since polytheists and Jews are the bitter enemies of Muslims, but Nazarenes are their closest friends.

4. Sura Al Imran 3, "As God said, O Jesus, I'll make you die, and I'll raise you up to me, and I'll purify you from the infidels, and I'll make those who followed you higher than the infidels until the Day of Judgement." Hence, it is clear to you that the followers of Christ, or Christians, are not infidels. On the contrary, God distinguished Christians from infidels and raised them above infidels.

The testimony of the Qur'an concerning Christians has proved with certainty that they worship the one God and are no polytheists.

THE QUR'ANIC TESTIMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN HOLY TRINITY
Perhaps you are amazed, my dear friend, that the Qur'an mentions the Trinity of the one God exactly as Christians believe in it. We have already seen that the Trinity of Christianity is the nature of God. His Word, and His Spirit. This is the same Trinity that the Qur'an mentions, "But Jesus Christ, son of Mary is the messenger of God and His word and spirit of Him that He gave to Mary" (Sura al-Nisa 4:171). In this verse it is clear that God has:

a personality - "messenger of God"

a word - "and His word"

a spirit - "and a spirit from Him"

This testimony of the Qur'an for the creed of the Trinity is what we Christians proclaim and no more. It does not proclaim polytheism, but rather it proclaims that there is no God but Him.

THE QUR'ANIC TESTIMONY THAT CHRIST IS THE WORD OF GOD
The Qur'an testifies very clearly that Christ is the Word of God. The following Qur'anic references are examples:

1. Sura al-Nisa 4:171, "Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, is God's messenger and His word."

2. Sura Al Imran 3:139, "...God proclaims to you Yahya (John the Baptist) supporting a word from God..." The Iman Abu al-Su`ud commented on the phrase "supporting a word from God," that is Isa, may He be blessed, by saying, "...it was said that he (John the Baptist) was the first to believe in Him (Jesus) and to support His being the Word of God and a Spirit from Him. Al Sadi said, "The mother of Yahya (John) meeting the mother of Isa (Jesus) asked, "Mary, have you felt my pregnancy?" Mary answered, 'I too am pregnant.' She (John's mother) then said, 'I find that what is in my belly worships what is in your belly.' From here the above utterance of God 'supporting a word from God' comes clear" (Abu al-Su`ud Muhammad Ibn Muhammad al-Ahmadi's Commentary, page 233).

3. Sura Al Imran 3:45, "the angels said to Mary, 'Allah proclaims to you a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary." The English translation uses the relative pronoun whose in referring to a masculine personal pronoun in the Arabic original. This indicates the fact that a word here does not mean a simple word of language but a person. You also find this clarified in the saying of one of the Muslim scholars (Al Shaikh Muhyi al-Din al-Arabic), who said, "The word is God in theophany... and it is the one divine person and not any other" ("Fusus al-Hukm part II, p. 35). He also said that the word is the divine person (page 13). Isn't that exactly what was said about the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of John? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh" (John 1:1,14). In the Arabic translation of this verse, we again find (in conformity with the Greek original) the same usage of the term word with the pronouns referring to it. Word refers to a person. This is clear from John's specifications, "The Word was God" and "Word became flesh."

THE QUR'ANIC TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Many verses of the Qur'an mention that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and that He supported the Lord Jesus with it. This becomes clear from the following:

Sura al-Ma'ida 5:110, "Allah said to Jesus, 'Jesus, son of Mary, remember the favour I had bestowed on you and your mother, how I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit, so that you preached to men in your cradle and in the prime of manhood."

The theological scholar Al-Shaikh Muhammad al- Hariri al-Bayyumi says, "The Holy Spirit is the spirit of Allah" (Kitab al-Ruh wa Maiyyyatuha, p.53).

From all that preceded, my friend, the testimony of the Qur'an and the theologians of Islam for the creed of the Trinity in whom we Christians believe becomes clear.

THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit and is mentioned in the Qur'an in many places.

Sura Yusuf 12:87, "Do not despair of Allah's spirit; none but unbelievers despair of Allah's spirit."

Sura al-Baqara 2:87 and 253, "We gave Jesus the son of Mary veritable signs and strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit."

Al Imam al-Nasafi said, "By the Holy Spirit is meant, the sanctified spirit...or the name of God the greatest."

Sura al-Ma'ida 5:110, "Jesus, son of Mary remember the favour I have bestowed on you and on your mother; how I have strengthened you with the Holy Spirit."

Al Sayyid Abdul Karim al-Djabali said about the Holy Spirit that He is not created, and what is not created is eternal and the eternal is God alone.

Also Al-Shaikh Muhammad al-Harira al-Bayyumi said, "The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God is not created."

This is the holy Trinity in one God in whom we believe, and this is the secret of naming it as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is the title of the essential Fatherhood of God.

The Son is the title of the incarnated Word of God.

​

And also, for that matter, if wanting to have more information on what the Early Church and Jewish Christians did in navigating the Trinity, one can go here to previous discussions when it comes to seeing what occurred for Jewish Believers (Who were Monotheistic) when it came to their faith in Yeshua and yet learned how to understand that Monotheism was not opposite of a Triune perspective in the Lord:

One thing I noticed in a brief review of Nestorius (only a couple of his letters -- I've read the Bazaar of Heraclides, but I don't have a copy of it here) is that he tended to see the single person as Christ, made up both of God and man. Nominally this is probably OK according to Chalcedon. But it leads to results that I think are troubling. He is unwilling to say that God died for us. Christ, yes. He's serious about the unity of Christ, and is perfectly willing to say both that Christ died and that Christ is God. But he treats God and human as two components of the union, so that while the united person can be said to die, God can't.

That's not the case with Theodore, who is willing to say that God died, though only by virtue of being incarnate.

My understanding is that the major NT Christological texts see Jesus as the way God becomes present with us. God was in Christ reconciling the world. So it seems to me that whatever your philosophical terms (and I'm not particularly happy with the traditional ones) it needs to see God as being present through the human being in such a way that it is actually God acting.

Some of what Nestorius noted seemed to be in line with the ideology expressed in the Early Church that LIFE ITSELF could never die....as it concerns God being unable to ever be defeated. Hence, for Nestorius, his ideology led him to advocate plainly that Christ was God and Christ could die - but when it came to God the Father and the rest of the Trinity, they could never be extinguished.

Some of this gets into the territory that others have often brought up in Church history when wondering what it means for the Lord to die - with others noting that it was impossible for the devil to defeat the Lord. I Corinthians 15 notes this in detail when it came to death being defeated because of the work of the Lord - as the Author of Life can never be destroyed (John 11)...he can no more be defeated/perish than God can stop being eternal since his very nature will not allow for it. So in a very real sense, it can be noted rather easily that God himself can die (in the person of Christ) even though God himself did not die as it concerns the rest of the Holy Trinity.

The dualistic dynamic with language makes a world of difference - as two natures existed in one person with Jesus, as seen in 2 Cor 5:19 when it notes “that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” and Phil.2:8 notes “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” Additionally, we see in John 10:18 where Jesus said “no one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself.” And yet even though Jesus was God and in communion with the Father, Jesus in committing his spirit to the Lord (as seen when He cried out once more to His Father saying, “Into Your hands I commit My Spirit” and then breathed His last and died) was obviously aware that His Father did not die on the Cross - the Father, who has always existed and NEVER died, was the one Christ (also God) turned to.

William Lane Craig noted this when having to address the issue. In his words:

Christ could not die with respect to his divine nature but he could die with respect to his human nature. What is human death? It is the separation of the soul from the body when the body ceases to be a living organism. The soul survives the body and will someday be re-united with it in a resurrected form. That's what happened to Christ. His soul was separated from his body and his body ceased to be alive. He became temporarily a disembodied person. On the third day God raised him from the dead in a transformed body.

In short, yes, we can say that God died on the cross because the person who underwent death was a divine person. So Wesley was all right in asking, "How can it be, that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" But to say that God died on the cross is misleading in the same way that it is misleading to say that Christ died on the cross in relation to his human nature, but not in relation to his divine nature.​

Jesus was God - and it was more than possible for God to die, as evidenced in Christ. Nonetheless, God the Father was not the one who died on the Cross even as Christ was fully God/Fully man - and yet the paradox doesn't have to be resolved. We can have the concept of truth in tension - knowing that Jesus really cannot be defeated. For Rev.1:18 says of Jesus “I am He who lives and was dead, and behold I Am alive forever more.”...with this mentioned again in Rev.4:8-9 when it says he is the one “who was and is and is to come.

As another noted best, "Was Nestorius promoting the heretical idea that two distinct persons resided in Jesus? It is hard to say because of the political and ecclesiastical rivalries that involved him in the church. Also, his ambiguous language was easily misunderstood among the many heresies swirling about (e.g. adoptionism, docetism, Apollonarianism, etc.) Nestorius was viewed as not fully appreciating the unity of Christ’s person. The West resolved the debate of the two-natures at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).......It should be acknowledged that Chalcedon did not entirely remove the mystery of the paradox that exists in the person of Christ. At best, the Chalcedonian Creed states what the “two natures in one person” does not mean"

With Nestorius in what he emphasized when saying Jesus (as God) could die but God the Father (as well as God the Holy Spirit) could not, it really is reflective on several levels with what the early Church noted when it came to Jewish believers (in the first century beforethe councils) had battles as it concerns the concept of the Divine Council - and the reality of the Two Powers in Heaven idea that helped many Jews come to faith in Christ and developa Christological Monotheism since they could understand that the rabbis always taught that God had a lesser power to Him (regent) who was God as well and they co-ruled. Many are not aware of the relationships between rabbinic Judaism, Merkabah mysticism, and early Christianity - as it was the case that "Two powers in heaven" was a very early category of heresy and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity...yet they did not understand the reality of what Christianity advocated on the role of the Messiah nor did they know the history of what the rabbis before them had already said in agreement with the Messiah being Divine.


One Jewish scholar who did an amazing job on the issue is Daniel Boyarin, who wrote Two Powers in Heaven; Or the Making of Heresy as well as the book entitled Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (as well as The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John and the work "The Jewish Gospels" where he noted at multiple points where the concept of the Messiah was always rooted in Jewish thought and echoed by what the rabbis said....and for Jews, the two powers are one and a person does not worship one without the other and even Second Temple literature is replete with forms of bitheism, including the philonic logos and the Ezekiel traditions of an Angel of God in the image of a man appearing on the throne. ).


Additionally, Dr. Michael Heisner (of LOGOS Bible Software) did an excellent job covering the issue in his presentation entitled The Naked Bible » Two Powers in Heaven ....more here in The Divine Council and Jewish Binitarianism - YouTube or the following:

Dr. Michael Heiser: The Jewish Trinity - YouTube

Michael Heiser - Two Powers of the Godhead - May 4, 2013 - YouTube

Holy Trinity - Dr. Michael Heiser - YouTube

All of that is again said to bring home the point that Nestorius was very much in line with the Jewish Binatarianism concept - although others are free to debate it.

/QUOTE]

 

[gord44]

In other words, how dare Christians defend their beliefs against beliefs that aren't Christian? Your anti-Christian stance is noted.

Not anti Christian at all. Everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe. I would find collecting coins a waste of time but that does't mean I wouldn't defend a persons right to collect them if that's their bag. If one is happy in their journey then that's all good, just saying i find 'One True Wayism' detrimental to a spiritual seeker. If one isn't a seeker then I am sure they could care less.

 

[gord44]

...

 

[AionPhanes]

She shouldn't have been suspended. However, we don't believe the same. Christians believe Christ is God. Muslims reject this notion. I don't see how we can consider that we worship the same God, in light of this. Yes, our religions have the same root; however, that doesn't mean we believe the same things about God. Christians believe there is no salvation outside of Christ.

She didn't say "we believe the same things about God." The fact that Christians and Muslims believe different things about God wouldn't invalidate her statement. That we disagree about Gods nature doesn't imply that we are not talking about the same God. If a person with vision problems pointed at a guy named John Doe and said; "John Doe right there is 6 ft tall and has blue eyes", and another person says; "No, that person, John Doe, is actually 5 ft 10 and has green eyes," that wouldn't imply that the two people are talking about a different John Doe. They merely disagree about his attributes. Same thing with Muslims and Christians regarding the God and creator of the universe.

 

[JackRT]

Unfortunately, what is the case historically is that Christians actually aware of what was said and done in the Early Church are left out of the conversation - and those joining with Wheaton categorically show that they do NOT know what Christianity was about or what Christ actually said (especially when trying to pigeon-hole things in saying "I don't want solidarity with Muslims" and ignoring the many groups in scripture who had solidarity with Israel even when they were not Israel, from Midianites to Cyrus of Persia and many others). It is sad but it is what it is...

To be clear, I have shared my own thoughts elsewhere as it concerns the issue of Radical Islam and how we're to respond to it and take it seriously when it comes to violence (as seen here and here/here/here/here, herec and here). Military intervention is not always the best and it is because of U.S military intervention that much of the crisis began in the first place....just as it did with Syria and other places (more shared here and in Cairo death poll passes 500).

Indeed, saying Radical Islam represents all Muslims (including those who've denounced the actions of radicals as apostasy/erroneous ) would be no different than others claiming the evils of other groups that do things in the name of Christ are somehow representing Christ (more shared here and here/here).

I think it would be wise, for anyone claiming to want the heart of Christ when it comes to Muslims, to remember the example of St. Francis of Assisi - who lived during the Crusades (and even participated in some) but later chose not to due to realizing the error in it - and doing much in the Islamic world for the Lord by choosing to love/not demonize all Muslims instead of justifying hate for where others were off. And others have already done an excellent job on addressing the issue when it comes to ministry with Muslims worldwide - more said, as said before, in Jesus the Messiah

Additionally, There's an amazing documentary on the issue which I thought was amazing - as seen in the following:

• In the Footprints of Francis and the Sultan - Franciscan Media

Additionally, One of the best reads on the issue which I would highly recommend is called The Saint and the Sultan: the Crusades, Islam and Francis of Assisi’s Mission of Peace, which examines a little known encounter between St. Francis of Assisi and Sultan Malik al-Kamil of Egypt during the Crusades.

I would hope for all of us to remember that we - if claiming Christ - are not more wise than the Church.....although from what I've seen, many will even think of the experiences of St. Francis with the Sultan and immediately think "If the MUSLIMS weren't so violent, would we have these problems??!! No!!!" ....and then they are tempted to go bring up the Crusades...


And so, with that, it should be noted that the Crusades themselves were VERY complex - with others even pointing out how much economics made a world of difference when it came to the Crusades and the motivations behind all sides in regards to monetary gains.

• Was Christianity responsible for the crusades? | HeadHeartHand Blog

• The Crusades: The Clash of Civilization | BBC History Documentary on Vimeo
• 
  
• The Crusades - Pilgrimage or Holy War?: Crash Course World History #15 - YouTube
• Byzantine History - Komnenoi and Crusades - YouTube

For as much as others are angry at the Muslims for what they did, I think it makes a difference when realizing what happened on the Christian side of things.

As said before, the Byzantine Christians - what we call Orthodox Christians - had never recognized the Pope's authority over their church, but both the Catholics and Orthodox Christians still recognized that they were part of the same church...and when the Byzantines were actively fighting against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia, they called out for aid from the West. To the Byzantines, what they were doing appeared to them to be akin to an act of Holy War (similar to what the Crusaders felt when saying it was "God's Will" for them to retake Jerusalem).

Pope Urban II saw an opportunity here which would allow him to get knights of Europe to help the Byzantines against the Moslems, and in return the two churches could make peace with one another and Christendom could be united..with land being gained by his forces and the West eventually in dominance. Thus, in 1095, the Pope began to preach Crusade - calling upon the Christians of Europe to defend their brethren against the Moslems and to expel the Moslems from the Byzantine empire, and if possible even make Jerusalem Christian again. ...but all of that backfired when the Crusaders began to atttack both Byzantines, Jews and other Muslims in the process.


And as offered elsewhere, for references:

• Byzantium and the Crusades
• The Crusades | War in The Middle East
• The Influence of the Crusades - The Orb
• Unique Facts about the Middle East: Crusades
• Civilizations in Conflict: Byzantium, Islam, and the Crusades
• Crusades (Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity) - eNotes.com
• A History of the Crusades, Volume V: The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East

Additionally, as it concerns discussion on the many Christian groups (i.e. Jacobites, Ghassanids, etc.) who WELCOMED the rise of the Muslims when the Byzantines were oppressing them and the Muslims were helping them gain independence, one may wish to investigate the work of others such as Dr. Philip Jenkins - who wrote many amazing reads on the issue such as "The Lost History of Christianity"..and other reads. He wisely pointed out how in the beginning stages of Islam, for many so-called heretics who were exiled/under the threat of death, such as the Monophysites, Muslim rulers were no worse than Christian Byzantine emperors, and less intrusive - with Christians thriving for some time. More specifically, prior to the Crusades, the persecution of the Monophysites by Constantinople allowed the Muslims easy access into Syria and they welcomed the tolerant Muslims with open arms, with Muslims being very tolerant of the divergent beliefs in the lands that they conquered.

• Armarium Magnum: The Lost History of Christianity by Philip Jenkins

• Ponderings on a Faith Journey: The Lost History of Christianity -- Review

• Part 1, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 1 on Vimeo

• Part 2, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 2 on Vimeo

THere were also others in the Eastern Empire who were just as violent/got control as well when it came to spiritual goals ..and there were PLENTY of organized assassinations/murders within the Eastern Empire to enforce control just as there was in the West. In example, I'm reminded of St. Mercurius' killing of Julian the Apostate after St. Basil prayed that he (Julian) not return from the war. He disappeared from the icon then reappeared with blood on his spear. The man, as well as many other soldiers, was represntative of monks in the spirit of Phineas from Numbers who killed the Israelite/Midianite in their tent for sexual relations.....for he as well as others were willing to use violent force to defend their country and religious beliefs--with the blessing of the Emperor.

​

Mercurius killed others whom he felt were not in line with the Lord, to my knowledge....his killing of Julian being something he's most famous for since he felt it would help end Julian's attempts to slow the spread of Christianity.Again, there are many others besides him....in the same spirit as anyone from the Crusades. And many in the culture supported it. The early violence in the Republic of Rome was replicated in the Eastern Roman Empire since political violence appeared in the Byzantine Empire from 400 CE to 600 CE. As it concerns the Crusades, it's often forgotten that the wars started between the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic armies that were trying to conquer territories. Other Christian groups such as the Ghassanids and the Nestorian Lakhmids rallied to join the Muslims who were expanding since they were greatly mistreated under the Byzantine rule - even as it concerns violence done to them as others claimed Christ and harmed those who did not agree with their own idea of who Christ was. For reference(for a brief excerpt):

The Nestorians, the Maronites, the Melkites, Chaldeans, Jacobites, Anchorites, Arians, Ebionites, Paulicians, Assyriani and a host of other churches sprung up or were influenced by the hermits living in the deserts and mountains of Syria, all seeking and trying to explain the mystery of God, his love for humanity and his compassion for the salvation of our souls though the personage, whether dual or monophysite in nature, of Jesus the Christ.

So many of these individual churches evolved that the Byzantines, seeking religious unity for the purpose of an empirical dominance based in Constantinople, began to persecute these churches, primarily because of the monophysite/diophysite controversy (referring to the single or dual natures of Christ) as well as their refusal to accept the final verdicts of the council of Nicaea. One can visit the caves in central Turkey, in Cappadocia, to see where these Christians would have had to hide from marauding Byzantine raiding parties who would put to death any and all heretics who were unlucky enough to be caught. The Muslim Arab armies invaded the region at the request of the local Christians who formed a coalition called the Ghassanids. Oppressed under Byzantine tyranny, the Christians of Syria sought the protection of the Arab Muslims, fellow Semites who were far more lenient and tolerant than their fellow Christian Greek rulers of the eastern Roman empire.


Concerning the Byzantine reaction, there was NO problem with the Byzantine Empire waging what they felt to be Holy War against others who they deemed to not be submitted to the Lord---and once the wars were not going in their favor, they called in the West....which was also geared for War just as they were, except they had differing goals apart from simply removing the Muslim threat. When the West began to indiscrimately attack both Byzantines and Muslims as well as Jews, it was portrayed by many as if the West was simply aggressive while the East was solely for peace. But again, the East engaged in War and asked the West to get involved. As they continued to wage war, it could easily be said that the people of the East were just as geared toward war as people in the West.

And of course, prior to all of that,many of the Church councils had it where the believers were QUITE violent (such as the Gangster Synod where other monastics were literally breaking fingers of others who wanted to sign agreements made when those people did not agree with them ). "Christians” in the Middle Ages developed creative ways of torturing people during the Inquisition - where hundreds of thousands of Jews, witches, heretics, and others deemed to be "sinners" ended up being tortured and murdered in ways that would make ISIS soldiers seem pale by comparison - and the same goes for the Protestant Reformation /English Reformation as it concerns others deemed "herectics" who were burned one after another and for reference, one can go here to 21 Medieval Torture Devices That Seem Too Horrifying To Be Real and Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: The Protestant Inquisition: "Reformation" Intolerance and Persecution and Church Society - Issues - History - Ryle Reformers


All of that, ultimately, is noted to point out the reality that people need to not be so quick to throw out stereotypes of how all Muslims act just as they'd not like sterotypes of how all Christians act if it comes to the extremes. History is full of complications and we have to acknowledge that .....

A tour de force! Thank you.

 

[RDKirk]

I suspect her suspension was not the result of this single act, but was the last event of a long chain of events that been below the notice of public media.

 

[RDKirk]

She didn't say "we believe the same things about God." The fact that Christians and Muslims believe different things about God wouldn't invalidate her statement. That we disagree about Gods nature doesn't imply that we are not talking about the same God. If a person with vision problems pointed at a guy named John Doe and said; "John Doe right there is 6 ft tall and has blue eyes", and another person says; "No, that person, John Doe, is actually 5 ft 10 and has green eyes," that wouldn't imply that the two people are talking about a different John Doe. They merely disagree about his attributes. Same thing with Muslims and Christians regarding the God and creator of the universe.

The failure of your analogy is that there is no guy they're pointing to.

Rather, they are each describing someone they individually know (or have merely heard of). One person's description is vastly different from the other's description. Nobody would think they're talking about the same person, even if they call that person by the same name. In this case, it's not even the same "name," it's merely a generic noun. Muslims have something they call "god" that they describe very much differently from our description of Jesus.

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?'" -- John 14:9

We have a lot of information about the things Jesus did and how He treated those around Him. A description of different attributes is a description of a different person. Any god that is not describable by the character of Jesus is some other god.

However, it should be noted that many Muslims are very "ripe for the harvest," if given the true, direct harvest. Islam "innoculates" Muslims against statements of Christian doctrine. Telling a Muslim that "Jesus is God" will be met with resistance because Islam has already taught them, "They will say Jesus is God, but that is wrong because...."

But they already accept Jesus as being from God. They even accept the virgin birth. Merely sit read the Gospels with them, let the Holy Spirit unfold it before them in the words of scripture, refrain from shoving "doctrine" at them. That works.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A tour de force! Thank you.

Not a problem and glad you were blessed by it.