christians follow PAUL and muslims follow JESUS

If I were to choose which one to follow, I would have preferred Ringo to Paul, anyday.

Along the same line of thought here is an article about the differences between Jesus and Paul.

http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html

A quote from the site;





What does this have to do with being followers of Christ. I think there are far more important things to consider than what one does with their dick.



But Muslims do. Muslims are no different from Christians when it come to selectively quoting their religious books in order to give validity to their dogma.



What "Church" would you be talking of? Certainly not the Catholic Church; or the conservative evangelicals. Are you assuming those, more liberal, churches that approve homosexual marriages speak for all of Christianity?

You say same sex marriage is repugnant to the human mind. Maybe yours since you seem to have a problem with this issue. It's not a problem with me and I am not a homosexual.

I think love between two people is far more important than the gender of those people. I think rights for Americans should be the same for all Americans and not just heterosexuals.

One thing Muslims have a serious problem with is human rights and freedom. What is it Muslims do to those who criticize or poke fun of Muhammad?

They kill them!

So... Muslims are anus lovers? Is that what you're getting at?

Either that or @ssholes . . . it's hard to tell which . . .

HERE READ THIS, AND THEN PUT UP OR SHUTUP:



Rebuttal to Quennel Gale
Challenge to Christians
By Abdullah Smith
[Part I] [Part II]


HE WROTE:

Osama Abdallah has enlisted the help of other Muslims on his website. One such Muslim is Abdullah Smith. In his list he has allegedly composed a series of practices that he believes Christians selectively follow. We will examine these practices and Mr. Smith's comments while exposing his selective quoting and Islamic propagandists' selective use of the Bible.

He Says:

I have compiled a list of verses that Christians neglect. They practice what is called ?'selective morality' when it comes to the Bible. They choose verses and jam it down ours throats, and the rest they ignore and reject vehemently. Its about time we have exposed this truth about those who claim to be followers of Christ. They really don't follow him at all. My comments are in red.

(1) Do they fast like Jesus?

When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:16-18)

And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. (Matthew 4:2)

And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29)

People had complained to Jesus saying, "Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?" (Luke 5:33). But Jesus replied that as long as he is with them his disciples should not fast, but after he is taken away then "they will fast in those days" (Luke 5:35).

So after they had fasted and prayed… (Acts 13:3)

* Christians do not fast; neither do they put oil on their heads. The disciples fasted like Jesus after his departure, and Muslims fast like them too!

Response:

First off Mr. Smith begins by poisoning the well and claims that Christians jam certain verses down Muslims' throats while practicing selective morality.

RESPONSE:

Christians have been poisoning the well for 2000 years. The true followers of Jesus were not called "Christians" at first, they were collectively known as the Nazarenes and Ebionites, the headquarters was based in Jerusalem, not Rome. The verse Acts 11:26 state how the pagans ridiculed the early disciples of Jesus with insulting remarks such as "Christian". This title was very offensive to the followers of the Way. (Acts 9:2, 19:23, 24:14, 22)

The first ?'Church' was founded by James the brother of Jesus, prior to the existence of the Pauline Church. I suggest you study the history of Christianity to learn about the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who were the true Christians from Jewish descent, and they no longer exist today.

Jesus never said anything about Rome being the centre of his teachings. He never once traveled to Rome, his teaching were only meant for the Jews (Matthew 10:6, 15:24) and he ignored a Gentile women begging for help (Mark 7:25-28).

There is absolutely no evidence that Peter went to Rome, the Protestants do not believe Peter set foot in Rome. The 2nd century apocryphal fable called the "Apocalypse of Peter" records that Peter was ?'crucified upside down', which is totally unhistorical.

Clement of Rome (d. 97) who was the first to write about the death of Peter and Paul, never mentioned his alleged crucifixion, the epistle of 1Clement only states that Paul was beheaded under Nero (64 CE) and Peter was "martyred at Rome". There is no reference to ?'upside down crucifixion'.

Once again, I urge you to study how the Pauline Christians overtook the Jerusalem Church by power and control, gradually fixing Paul's religion of "Christianity" throughout the Roman Empire.

By the 4th century, Christianity was firmly established from the roots of Paganism and Mithraism. At least two hundred years earlier, the ?'Jerusalem Church' was defeated by the Paulians who are now called Christians, the doctrines of Paul replaced the Teachings of Jesus.

After the Jewish War (66-70 CE), the Nazarenes turned poor, they became known as the Ebionites which means ?'poor ones'. Jesus is recorded to have said "Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)

Furthermore, Jesus did not establish "Christianity" on earth.

"…The first difficulty is that the word ?'Christian' is only encountered three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26, 26:28, Peter 4:16), and all three mentions occurred long after the ministry of Jesus. None of these three verses utilize the label ?'Christian' in a context which bears the authority of Jesus or of God. In other words, Jesus never identified himself as a Christian and never proclaimed himself to have established Christianity on earth. In fact, while the word ?'Christian' is encountered only three times in the Bible, the term ?'Christianity' is nowhere to be found". (Laurence B. Brown, The First and Final Commandment, p. 28)

Given the fact that there has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.), I hope to explain that Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God. One of the questions I asked myself as I took an objective (second) look at Christianity was; where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian. The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets. (Abdul Malik LeBlanc, The Bible Led Me to Islam)


Christians have abandoned the Mosaic Law because the Pauline Church requires them to have "faith only". The Christians today ONLY follow what the Church tells them, not what the Bible says, therefore they practice selective morality. Anyone who questions the doctrines of the Church, even a small child, is strongly rebuked and told "just to believe".

The Apostle Paul and his opponents in Galatia, who say, "Wait a minute, Paul told you a very simplified gospel, it makes it easy for you to become a member of this new group, but we know, after all, that if you're really going to be a real Christian, first you have to be a real Jew and that means, you have to be circumcised and you have to keep certain regulations out of the Torah. So Paul has not got it right. (www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html)

I've always had doubts about "christianity", or should I say "CHURCHIANITY", since I was old enough to know how to tie my shoes. I never felt quite right at "church", and now I know why. When I look at "church" in a new light, that is, the light of the fraud (ahem) that it has turned out to be, and that it's all about power, control, and mostly money, (A reviewer of The Bible Fraud, Amazon.com)


Many Christian sects flourished by the 2nd century throughout Palestine and beyond, yet the Pauline Church succeeded with the support from the Roman Empire that overpowered the Jerusalem Church, founded by James the brother of Jesus. The "Christianity" brought by Paul is NOT the Gospel preached by Jesus, but the Gospel of Paul, which is the foundation of Christianity.

What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?
The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority.... The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it." (Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus)

There were very different views of Jesus in the various types of Christianity.... Perhaps the starkest contrast was among those who considered themselves as gnostic Christians, and those who considered themselves Christians in the old Pauline view of things. On the one hand, Paul, and Pauline Christianity, would have placed all of the emphasis on Jesus' death and resurrection, and the saving power of that death and resurrection. Gnostic Christianity, on the other hand, would have placed its prime emphasis on the message, the wisdom, the knowledge, the gnosis, that's where the word gnostic comes from, the Greek word for knowledge, the knowledge that Jesus transmits, and even the secret knowledge that Jesus transmits. So one would have on the one hand faith in the saving event of Jesus' life and death, and on the other hand knowledge as the great source of adherence to the Jesus movement on the other hand. (www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html)

The point I am trying to make is that the early Jewish Christians, known as the Nazarenes and Ebionites, were the true Christians, they never practiced ?'selective morality'; they accepted the Torah as the complete embodiment of Jesus' teachings. For example, Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21) but how many Christians are circumcised?


Jesus usually prayed in the synagogue. He prayed at appointed times each day, in the morning, at mid-day, and in the evening. The exact form of his prayer is no longer extant, but it is known that it was based on the prayer which Moses was given. Jesus said that he had come to uphold the Law and not to destroy it one jot or one tithe.

Jesus was educated in the synagogue in Jerusalem from the age of twelve. He preached in the synagogue. He used to keep the synagogue clean. No Christian today can be found performing these actions. How many Christians have even been circumcised in the manner that Jesus was?

The services now held in today's churches were developed long after Jesus had disappeared. Many of them come directly from the pagan Graeco-Roman mythological rites. The prayers they use are not the prayers which Jesus made… Due to the innovations of Paul and his followers, there is no revealed teaching left as to what to eat and what not to eat.

Anyone given a "Christian education" today eats what he feels like. Yet Jesus and his true followers only ate kosher meat and were forbidden to eat pig's flesh. The last meal Jesus is known to have eaten before his disappearance was the Passover meal. No Christian today celebrates this longstanding Jewish tradition to which Jesus so meticulously held.
(Muhammad, Ata-Rahim, Jesus Prophet of Islam, pp. 199-200)

Muslims are circumcised; therefore they are the true followers of Jesus.


YOU WROTE:

In reality, Muslims such as his friend Osama Abdallah are guilty of selectively using the Bible. One example is Muslims claiming that the Bible is corrupted while at the same time using the Bible as an accurate source when it helps prove their case.

RESPONSE:

Shabir Ally answers this question:

It is wrong and dishonest to quote anything or any book out of context, whether it be the Bible or the Qur'an. No Muslim should resort to such an approach. God wants us to spread the truth by honest means only. Having said that, it should also be said that Muslims, Christians and Jews do not believe in every single thing that the Bible says. No reasonable person can do that.

I Samuel chapter 17, verses 23 & 50 says that David killed Goliath. II Samuel 21:19 says that Elhanan killed Goliath. I Chronicles 20:5 says that Elhanan killed not Goliath but the brother of Goliath whose name is given as Lahmi. Obviously, no reasonable person should believe all three reports.

Knowing this, the editors of the King James Bible decided to fix this problem by making a slight correction to the Bible. They inserted three words in II Samuel 21:19 to make it say there also that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. You will notice that the three words the brother of appear there in italics to distinguish them from the rest of the Bible.

The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible calls this a "conflict of tradition about Goliath" (p.179; see also p. 212). It says further that the author of Chronicles changed the story where it said that Elhanan killed Goliath to make it say that Elhanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. The same commentary says further that the statement in I Chronicles is "incorrect" (p. 180). So here we have a Bible commentary written by Christians, published by Christians, and sold in Christian bookstores - yet it openly disagrees with a statement in the Bible. This was done not because Christians wanted to disbelieve in the Bible, but because they had to choose, among different statements in the Bible, which statement is more believable.

Now, this approach to the Bible does not mean that Christians cannot refer to the Bible or quote from it or write commentaries on it. Likewise for Muslims. Although Muslims, like their Christian and Jewish neighbors, do not believe in every single thing the Bible says, students of comparative religion should be allowed to study both the Qur'an and the Bible. Every honest student, however, will pay close attention to the context of what he or she reads, and apply scrupulous exactitude when quoting from either book.

May God help us and guide us all to understand His true message regardless in which book that truth is contained. (Common Questions People Ask About Islam, p 24-25)


You have missed the point. I was conveying the absolute truth about the behavior of Christians; the ?'selective morality' they practice is confirmed by how they live today. Christians only follow what the Church says; but their Scriptures contain many Laws that are neglected, especially in the Old Testament, just because their Jewish.

With the teaching by some, notably Paul, that the laws of the Jews need not to be followed by a Christian, contradictions began to arise between the body of newly-written Scriptures, which later became known as the "New Testament", and the Old Testament. However, the Old Testament was retained by the established Church in spite of these contradictions, since an outright rejection of the Old Testament would have been regarded by many of the people as a rejection of Jesus himself. Confusion was the inevitable result. In the attempt to accept and reject the Old Testament simultaneously, contradictions arose within the New Testament itself, since it had to be "new" without openly rejecting the old. But, in the early days of the Church, there was no real attempt to formally arrange the books and ensure that all the accounts and doctrines tallied with each other. The leaders of the first Christian communities were free to use their discretion and to refer to those Scriptures which they thought best contained the teachings of Jesus. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, pp. 46)


READ THIS:

Christians reject the prohibition of wine (Proverbs 4:17, 20:1, Isaiah 28:7, Joel 1:5, Hosea 4:11) and the consumption of swine
(Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:8-9), getting tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), making "Christmas" trees (Jeremiah 10:1-4) the law
of Circumcision (Genesis 17:14) the observance of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8, 21:14) and the death penalties are rejected
(Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 24:16)., etc.

The Bible teaches that rebellious children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) yet Christians obviously ignore this, they vehemently reject it!

Please visit:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/125/52.0.html

http://www.biblegems.com/SPANKINFO.HTM

The Church has legalized same-sex marriage, yet this law contradicts the Bible. Nowhere do we find same-sex marriage in the Bible. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

www.christianweek.org/stories/vol14/no19/story1.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm



Christians have debunked their Scriptures by rejecting them. Why did the Church legalize same-sex marriage? It's because they are NOT the followers of Jesus. Such ideas are repugnant to the human mind.


Now for your claims about the Bible!

The Bible itself says it's corrupted (Jeremiah 8:8) and the Church Fathers testified that many contradictions exist in the Bible.

The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind. If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to these works. (Origen, Commentary on John, Book X)

In the early 2nd century, the Gnostic leader Marcion (d. 140 CE) wrote a book entitled ?'Antithesis' which exposes many contradictions between the Old and New Testament on the nature of God. Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament; he justifies this claim by citing verses that portray the Old Testament God as Evil and the New Testament God as Loving. Such contradictions cannot be resolved.

The Creator God is inconsistent, in respect of persons, sometimes disapproving where approbation is deserved; or else lacking in foresight, bestowing approbation on men who ought rather be reprobated, as if he either censured his own past judgements, or could not forecast his future ones.
With fickleness and improvidence he repented, or on some recollection of some wrong-doing, because the Creator actually says "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king" (1 Samual 15:11), his repentence in the sense of an acknowledgement of some evil work or error. This is also the case in the matter of the Ninevites, when the Book of Jonah (3:10) states,
"And God repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them; and he did not."
The Creator called out to Adam, "Where art thou?" as if ignorant of where Adam was; and when Adam alleged that the shame of his nakedness was the reason for hiding himself, the Creator inquired whether he had eaten of the tree, as if he were in doubt (Genesis 3:9-11).
In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, he says "I will go down now, to see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come to me; and if not, I will know"; another instance of his uncertainty in ignorance.
The Creator God was even mean enough in his very fierceness, when, in his wrath against the people for their consecration of the golden calf, he makes this request to Moses: "Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make thee a great nation" (Exodus 32:10). Moses is better than his God, as the deprecatur and indeed, the averter of his anger, "For Thou shalt not do this; or else destroy me along with them" (Exodus 32:32).
(MARCION)
______________________________________________________________________


Christians do exactly the same, they use the Quran selectively and simultaneously disregard the book, and Muslims only quote certain passages that support their argument.


YOU WROTE:

Furthermore, Mr. Smith is totally wrong about Christians not putting oil on their heads before a fast. Churches across the world use "olive oil" as "blessed oil", before many major prayers and fasts. I am really disappointed in Mr. Smith for bringing this charge up because apparently he has never attended a Church in his life!


RESPONSE:

Listen, even if Christians "put oil on their heads" as you claim, they still pray to statues of Jesus, which is the gravest sin (Al-Quran 4:48, 6:22, 7:191, 9:31, 10:18, ) associate partners with God by worshipping "intercessors", and NEVER pray to God physically. (Numbers 20:6, Psalms 95:6)

You did not tell us which Churches use this "sacred oil" There are many Churches around the world that follow their own Canon of Scripture:


(1) Anglican Church
(2) Armenian Church
(3) Coptic Church
(4) Ethiopic (Abyssinian) Church
(5) Greek Orthodox Church
(6) Protestant Church
(7) Roman Catholic Church
(8) Syriac Church

The Churches in the United States are mostly Protestant and Catholic, if they use the "sacred oil", then which Church does not practice this ritual?


The Bible teaches the physical worship:


I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isaiah 45:23)


The Roman Catholics worship Jesus, Mary, the Father, the Holy Ghost, and multiple saints! How many gods is that? How many intercessors?!


"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (Matthew 6:24)


I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (John 13:16)


Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

Good grief, dude. Another one?! At least work on boiling it down, a little. Just make one or two points. I swear to God, nobody is reading all of this. The word is "CONCISION".

Can't really boil down what he's pulling off a website. I'd be surprised if he's even 80% knowledgeable of what he's pasting.

whats wrong with pulling it off a website when the verses are directly in the bible? go to the NIV bible website and check and compare the verses i pulled off the website

I'd be surprised if he knew his elbow from his a**hole.

whats wrong with pulling it off a website when the verses are directly in the bible? go to the NIV bible website and check and compare the verses i pulled off

Hey Dude

In your response to me what was your point other than you don't like Christians.

What you were trying to say got lost in all your garbage.

Here's a new word for you to learn.

CONCISE-Expressing much in few words; clear and succinct.

HEY "DUDE" READ ALL THIS "CRAP" AGAIN AND JUSTIFY IT FOR ME AND ANSWER THIS TO ME, WHY DONT CHRISTIANS FAST LIKE JESUS DID?




Rebuttal to Quennel Gale
Challenge to Christians
By Abdullah Smith
[Part I] [Part II]


HE WROTE:

Osama Abdallah has enlisted the help of other Muslims on his website. One such Muslim is Abdullah Smith. In his list he has allegedly composed a series of practices that he believes Christians selectively follow. We will examine these practices and Mr. Smith's comments while exposing his selective quoting and Islamic propagandists' selective use of the Bible.

He Says:

I have compiled a list of verses that Christians neglect. They practice what is called ?'selective morality' when it comes to the Bible. They choose verses and jam it down ours throats, and the rest they ignore and reject vehemently. Its about time we have exposed this truth about those who claim to be followers of Christ. They really don't follow him at all. My comments are in red.

(1) Do they fast like Jesus?

When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:16-18)

And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. (Matthew 4:2)

And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29)

People had complained to Jesus saying, "Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?" (Luke 5:33). But Jesus replied that as long as he is with them his disciples should not fast, but after he is taken away then "they will fast in those days" (Luke 5:35).

So after they had fasted and prayed… (Acts 13:3)

* Christians do not fast; neither do they put oil on their heads. The disciples fasted like Jesus after his departure, and Muslims fast like them too!

Response:

First off Mr. Smith begins by poisoning the well and claims that Christians jam certain verses down Muslims' throats while practicing selective morality.

RESPONSE:

Christians have been poisoning the well for 2000 years. The true followers of Jesus were not called "Christians" at first, they were collectively known as the Nazarenes and Ebionites, the headquarters was based in Jerusalem, not Rome. The verse Acts 11:26 state how the pagans ridiculed the early disciples of Jesus with insulting remarks such as "Christian". This title was very offensive to the followers of the Way. (Acts 9:2, 19:23, 24:14, 22)

The first ?'Church' was founded by James the brother of Jesus, prior to the existence of the Pauline Church. I suggest you study the history of Christianity to learn about the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who were the true Christians from Jewish descent, and they no longer exist today.

Jesus never said anything about Rome being the centre of his teachings. He never once traveled to Rome, his teaching were only meant for the Jews (Matthew 10:6, 15:24) and he ignored a Gentile women begging for help (Mark 7:25-28).

There is absolutely no evidence that Peter went to Rome, the Protestants do not believe Peter set foot in Rome. The 2nd century apocryphal fable called the "Apocalypse of Peter" records that Peter was ?'crucified upside down', which is totally unhistorical.

Clement of Rome (d. 97) who was the first to write about the death of Peter and Paul, never mentioned his alleged crucifixion, the epistle of 1Clement only states that Paul was beheaded under Nero (64 CE) and Peter was "martyred at Rome". There is no reference to ?'upside down crucifixion'.

Once again, I urge you to study how the Pauline Christians overtook the Jerusalem Church by power and control, gradually fixing Paul's religion of "Christianity" throughout the Roman Empire.

By the 4th century, Christianity was firmly established from the roots of Paganism and Mithraism. At least two hundred years earlier, the ?'Jerusalem Church' was defeated by the Paulians who are now called Christians, the doctrines of Paul replaced the Teachings of Jesus.

After the Jewish War (66-70 CE), the Nazarenes turned poor, they became known as the Ebionites which means ?'poor ones'. Jesus is recorded to have said "Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)

Furthermore, Jesus did not establish "Christianity" on earth.

"…The first difficulty is that the word ?'Christian' is only encountered three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26, 26:28, Peter 4:16), and all three mentions occurred long after the ministry of Jesus. None of these three verses utilize the label ?'Christian' in a context which bears the authority of Jesus or of God. In other words, Jesus never identified himself as a Christian and never proclaimed himself to have established Christianity on earth. In fact, while the word ?'Christian' is encountered only three times in the Bible, the term ?'Christianity' is nowhere to be found". (Laurence B. Brown, The First and Final Commandment, p. 28)

Given the fact that there has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.), I hope to explain that Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God. One of the questions I asked myself as I took an objective (second) look at Christianity was; where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian. The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets. (Abdul Malik LeBlanc, The Bible Led Me to Islam)


Christians have abandoned the Mosaic Law because the Pauline Church requires them to have "faith only". The Christians today ONLY follow what the Church tells them, not what the Bible says, therefore they practice selective morality. Anyone who questions the doctrines of the Church, even a small child, is strongly rebuked and told "just to believe".

The Apostle Paul and his opponents in Galatia, who say, "Wait a minute, Paul told you a very simplified gospel, it makes it easy for you to become a member of this new group, but we know, after all, that if you're really going to be a real Christian, first you have to be a real Jew and that means, you have to be circumcised and you have to keep certain regulations out of the Torah. So Paul has not got it right. (www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html)

I've always had doubts about "christianity", or should I say "CHURCHIANITY", since I was old enough to know how to tie my shoes. I never felt quite right at "church", and now I know why. When I look at "church" in a new light, that is, the light of the fraud (ahem) that it has turned out to be, and that it's all about power, control, and mostly money, (A reviewer of The Bible Fraud, Amazon.com)


Many Christian sects flourished by the 2nd century throughout Palestine and beyond, yet the Pauline Church succeeded with the support from the Roman Empire that overpowered the Jerusalem Church, founded by James the brother of Jesus. The "Christianity" brought by Paul is NOT the Gospel preached by Jesus, but the Gospel of Paul, which is the foundation of Christianity.

What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?
The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority.... The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it." (Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus)

There were very different views of Jesus in the various types of Christianity.... Perhaps the starkest contrast was among those who considered themselves as gnostic Christians, and those who considered themselves Christians in the old Pauline view of things. On the one hand, Paul, and Pauline Christianity, would have placed all of the emphasis on Jesus' death and resurrection, and the saving power of that death and resurrection. Gnostic Christianity, on the other hand, would have placed its prime emphasis on the message, the wisdom, the knowledge, the gnosis, that's where the word gnostic comes from, the Greek word for knowledge, the knowledge that Jesus transmits, and even the secret knowledge that Jesus transmits. So one would have on the one hand faith in the saving event of Jesus' life and death, and on the other hand knowledge as the great source of adherence to the Jesus movement on the other hand. (www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html)

The point I am trying to make is that the early Jewish Christians, known as the Nazarenes and Ebionites, were the true Christians, they never practiced ?'selective morality'; they accepted the Torah as the complete embodiment of Jesus' teachings. For example, Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21) but how many Christians are circumcised?


Jesus usually prayed in the synagogue. He prayed at appointed times each day, in the morning, at mid-day, and in the evening. The exact form of his prayer is no longer extant, but it is known that it was based on the prayer which Moses was given. Jesus said that he had come to uphold the Law and not to destroy it one jot or one tithe.

Jesus was educated in the synagogue in Jerusalem from the age of twelve. He preached in the synagogue. He used to keep the synagogue clean. No Christian today can be found performing these actions. How many Christians have even been circumcised in the manner that Jesus was?

The services now held in today's churches were developed long after Jesus had disappeared. Many of them come directly from the pagan Graeco-Roman mythological rites. The prayers they use are not the prayers which Jesus made… Due to the innovations of Paul and his followers, there is no revealed teaching left as to what to eat and what not to eat.

Anyone given a "Christian education" today eats what he feels like. Yet Jesus and his true followers only ate kosher meat and were forbidden to eat pig's flesh. The last meal Jesus is known to have eaten before his disappearance was the Passover meal. No Christian today celebrates this longstanding Jewish tradition to which Jesus so meticulously held.
(Muhammad, Ata-Rahim, Jesus Prophet of Islam, pp. 199-200)

Muslims are circumcised; therefore they are the true followers of Jesus.


YOU WROTE:

In reality, Muslims such as his friend Osama Abdallah are guilty of selectively using the Bible. One example is Muslims claiming that the Bible is corrupted while at the same time using the Bible as an accurate source when it helps prove their case.

RESPONSE:

Shabir Ally answers this question:

It is wrong and dishonest to quote anything or any book out of context, whether it be the Bible or the Qur'an. No Muslim should resort to such an approach. God wants us to spread the truth by honest means only. Having said that, it should also be said that Muslims, Christians and Jews do not believe in every single thing that the Bible says. No reasonable person can do that.

I Samuel chapter 17, verses 23 & 50 says that David killed Goliath. II Samuel 21:19 says that Elhanan killed Goliath. I Chronicles 20:5 says that Elhanan killed not Goliath but the brother of Goliath whose name is given as Lahmi. Obviously, no reasonable person should believe all three reports.

Knowing this, the editors of the King James Bible decided to fix this problem by making a slight correction to the Bible. They inserted three words in II Samuel 21:19 to make it say there also that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. You will notice that the three words the brother of appear there in italics to distinguish them from the rest of the Bible.

The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible calls this a "conflict of tradition about Goliath" (p.179; see also p. 212). It says further that the author of Chronicles changed the story where it said that Elhanan killed Goliath to make it say that Elhanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. The same commentary says further that the statement in I Chronicles is "incorrect" (p. 180). So here we have a Bible commentary written by Christians, published by Christians, and sold in Christian bookstores - yet it openly disagrees with a statement in the Bible. This was done not because Christians wanted to disbelieve in the Bible, but because they had to choose, among different statements in the Bible, which statement is more believable.

Now, this approach to the Bible does not mean that Christians cannot refer to the Bible or quote from it or write commentaries on it. Likewise for Muslims. Although Muslims, like their Christian and Jewish neighbors, do not believe in every single thing the Bible says, students of comparative religion should be allowed to study both the Qur'an and the Bible. Every honest student, however, will pay close attention to the context of what he or she reads, and apply scrupulous exactitude when quoting from either book.

May God help us and guide us all to understand His true message regardless in which book that truth is contained. (Common Questions People Ask About Islam, p 24-25)


You have missed the point. I was conveying the absolute truth about the behavior of Christians; the ?'selective morality' they practice is confirmed by how they live today. Christians only follow what the Church says; but their Scriptures contain many Laws that are neglected, especially in the Old Testament, just because their Jewish.

With the teaching by some, notably Paul, that the laws of the Jews need not to be followed by a Christian, contradictions began to arise between the body of newly-written Scriptures, which later became known as the "New Testament", and the Old Testament. However, the Old Testament was retained by the established Church in spite of these contradictions, since an outright rejection of the Old Testament would have been regarded by many of the people as a rejection of Jesus himself. Confusion was the inevitable result. In the attempt to accept and reject the Old Testament simultaneously, contradictions arose within the New Testament itself, since it had to be "new" without openly rejecting the old. But, in the early days of the Church, there was no real attempt to formally arrange the books and ensure that all the accounts and doctrines tallied with each other. The leaders of the first Christian communities were free to use their discretion and to refer to those Scriptures which they thought best contained the teachings of Jesus. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, pp. 46)


READ THIS:

Christians reject the prohibition of wine (Proverbs 4:17, 20:1, Isaiah 28:7, Joel 1:5, Hosea 4:11) and the consumption of swine
(Leviticus 11:7-8, Deuteronomy 14:8-9), getting tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), making "Christmas" trees (Jeremiah 10:1-4) the law
of Circumcision (Genesis 17:14) the observance of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8, 21:14) and the death penalties are rejected
(Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 24:16)., etc.

The Bible teaches that rebellious children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) yet Christians obviously ignore this, they vehemently reject it!

Please visit:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/125/52.0.html

http://www.biblegems.com/SPANKINFO.HTM

The Church has legalized same-sex marriage, yet this law contradicts the Bible. Nowhere do we find same-sex marriage in the Bible. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

www.christianweek.org/stories/vol14/no19/story1.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm



Christians have debunked their Scriptures by rejecting them. Why did the Church legalize same-sex marriage? It's because they are NOT the followers of Jesus. Such ideas are repugnant to the human mind.


Now for your claims about the Bible!

The Bible itself says it's corrupted (Jeremiah 8:8) and the Church Fathers testified that many contradictions exist in the Bible.

The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind. If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to these works. (Origen, Commentary on John, Book X)

In the early 2nd century, the Gnostic leader Marcion (d. 140 CE) wrote a book entitled ?'Antithesis' which exposes many contradictions between the Old and New Testament on the nature of God. Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament; he justifies this claim by citing verses that portray the Old Testament God as Evil and the New Testament God as Loving. Such contradictions cannot be resolved.

The Creator God is inconsistent, in respect of persons, sometimes disapproving where approbation is deserved; or else lacking in foresight, bestowing approbation on men who ought rather be reprobated, as if he either censured his own past judgements, or could not forecast his future ones.
With fickleness and improvidence he repented, or on some recollection of some wrong-doing, because the Creator actually says "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king" (1 Samual 15:11), his repentence in the sense of an acknowledgement of some evil work or error. This is also the case in the matter of the Ninevites, when the Book of Jonah (3:10) states,
"And God repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them; and he did not."
The Creator called out to Adam, "Where art thou?" as if ignorant of where Adam was; and when Adam alleged that the shame of his nakedness was the reason for hiding himself, the Creator inquired whether he had eaten of the tree, as if he were in doubt (Genesis 3:9-11).
In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, he says "I will go down now, to see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come to me; and if not, I will know"; another instance of his uncertainty in ignorance.
The Creator God was even mean enough in his very fierceness, when, in his wrath against the people for their consecration of the golden calf, he makes this request to Moses: "Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make thee a great nation" (Exodus 32:10). Moses is better than his God, as the deprecatur and indeed, the averter of his anger, "For Thou shalt not do this; or else destroy me along with them" (Exodus 32:32).
(MARCION)
______________________________________________________________________


Christians do exactly the same, they use the Quran selectively and simultaneously disregard the book, and Muslims only quote certain passages that support their argument.


YOU WROTE:

Furthermore, Mr. Smith is totally wrong about Christians not putting oil on their heads before a fast. Churches across the world use "olive oil" as "blessed oil", before many major prayers and fasts. I am really disappointed in Mr. Smith for bringing this charge up because apparently he has never attended a Church in his life!


RESPONSE:

Listen, even if Christians "put oil on their heads" as you claim, they still pray to statues of Jesus, which is the gravest sin (Al-Quran 4:48, 6:22, 7:191, 9:31, 10:18, ) associate partners with God by worshipping "intercessors", and NEVER pray to God physically. (Numbers 20:6, Psalms 95:6)

You did not tell us which Churches use this "sacred oil" There are many Churches around the world that follow their own Canon of Scripture:


(1) Anglican Church
(2) Armenian Church
(3) Coptic Church
(4) Ethiopic (Abyssinian) Church
(5) Greek Orthodox Church
(6) Protestant Church
(7) Roman Catholic Church
(8) Syriac Church

The Churches in the United States are mostly Protestant and Catholic, if they use the "sacred oil", then which Church does not practice this ritual?


The Bible teaches the physical worship:


I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isaiah 45:23)


The Roman Catholics worship Jesus, Mary, the Father, the Holy Ghost, and multiple saints! How many gods is that? How many intercessors?!


"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (Matthew 6:24)


I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (John 13:16)


Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)

Why don't Muslims marry children like Mohammed did?

WHY DONT CHRISTIANS RAPE 3 YEAR OLD GIRLS LIKE THE BIBLE ORDERED THEM TO?


WHY DONT CHRISTIANS STONE APOSTATES TO DEATH LIKE THE BIBLE ORDERED THEM TO?


WHY DONT CHRISTIAN FATHERS STICK THEIR TWO FINGERS COVERED WITH A CLOTH INTO THEIR DAUTHERS TO PROVE THEYRE VIRGINS LIKE THE BIBLE OREDERED THEM TO?

WHY ARENT RAPED WOMAN FORCED TO MARRY THEIR RAPISTS FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES LIKE THE BIBLE ORDERED THEM TO?

Rape is a big crime that could actually take the woman's or the victim's life away. Let us examine how Christianity deals with the rapist: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)" Although this Verse from the Bible only talks about virgins, but its the only verse in the entire Bible that talks about raping single women. Not to be biased or anything, but the Bible seems to have quite weird things in it that are quite irrational and quite ridiculous. Deuteronomy 22:28 forces the raped woman to marry her rapist. My question to the writers of the Bible is why in the world would any raped female victim want to be in the same town, not the same bedroom !! with her rapist?.

Also, the Bible seems to promote raping of single women: "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:25)" This is quite an interesting verse. We see in Deuteronomy 22:28 that if a man rapes a single woman then she will be forced to be his wife, while if a man rapes a married woman or a woman who is spoken for, in Deuteronomy 22:25, then he shall be put to death. There is absolutely no punishment for the rapist of a single woman in the Bible. For those Christians who think that they don't have to follow the Old Testament, well my answer to them is this: The Old Testament prohibits for the brother to marry his sister, or for the son to marry his mother. The New Testament doesn't even talk about it. Does that mean that a Christian brother can marry his sister? or a Christian son can marry his mother? Jesus himself anyway ordered his followers to follow the Old Testament, so their argument is totally invalid.

Question to Jews and Christians: How is the Bible supposed to prevent some loser from stalking the most beautiful single woman in town, rape her, and then sue her in court to become his wife so he can continue raping her for the rest of her life?!

WHY DONT CHRISTIAN FATHERS SELL THEIR DAUGHTERS AS SLAVES TO MEN WHO ARE AS OLD AS THEIR GRANDFATHERS? BECAUSE ITS ALLOWED IN THE BIBLE

Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls to other men in the Bible:

Exodus 21:7-11
7. "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8. "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9. "If he designates her for his son [Note: "his son" means that the master is either her father's age or even much older!], he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10. "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11. "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

First of all, did the daughter have any choice to be sold off by her father, married off by her master to either himself or his son? No!

Also, the fact that the master can either marry her or marry her off to his son, means that MOST LIKELY, SHE IS HIS DAUGHTER'S AGE and younger than his son!! So he's probably at least 30+ years older than her. Yet, he himself (her father's age or even MUCH older) can marry her.

Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters in the Bible:

Let us look at the following Verses in the Bible: "If a man takes a wife and, after laying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof [how do you think they would do that?] that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth [the father would literally stick his two fingers covered with a piece of cloth into his daughter's vagina before she gets married and keep that bloody cloth for as long as his daughter is married] with before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:13-18)"

Here is a more clear translation from Hebrew Resources: "The girl's father and mother shall produce the evidence of the girl's virginity before the elders of the town at the gate. And the girl's father shall say to the elders, "I gave this man my daughter to wife, but he had taken an aversion to her; so he has made up charges, saying, 'I did not find your daughter a virgin.' But here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity!" And they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. (From the New JPS translation, Deuteronomy 22:15-17)"

The New JPS translation of Deuteronomy 22:15-17 makes it even more clear about having the parents of the girl displaying the bloody piece of cloth before the elders of the town.

According to the Talmud, the cloth should be "A cloth of less than 3 square finger-breadths. (From the Talmud, Eruvin 29b-30a and Succah 16a)", and before it is being used, it should be "soft, woolen and clean. (From the Talmud, Niddah 17a)"