From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity

[Kevin007]

has anyone done an in depth study on muhammad? He was a pretty evil person.

[Muwahid]

has anyone done an in depth study on muhammad? He was a pretty evil person.

List the reason so I can prove you wrong.

[Kevin007]

The Life of Muhammad: An Inconvenient Truth Now Includes the Myths of Muhammad
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/history.htm	Timeline of Muhammad's Life (A.D) 570 - Born in Mecca 576 - Orphaned upon death of mother 595 - Marries Kadijah - older, wealthy widow 610 - Reports first revelations from angel at age of 40 619 - Protector uncle dies 622 - Emigrates from Mecca to Medina (the Hijra) 623 - Orders raids on Meccan caravans 624 - Battle of Badr (victory) 624 - Evicts Qaynuqa Jews from Medina 624 - Orders the assassination of Abu Afak 624 - Orders the assassination of Asma bint Marwan 624 - Orders the assassination of Ka'b al-Ashraf 625 - Battle of Uhud (defeat) 625 - Evicts Nadir Jews 627 - Battle of the Trench (victory) 627 - Massacre of the Qurayza Jews 628 - Signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiya with Mecca 628 - Destruction and subjugation of the Khaybar Jews 629 - Orders first raid into Christian lands at Muta (defeat) 630 - Conquers Mecca by surprise (along with other tribes) 631 - Leads second raid into Christian territory at Tabuk (no battle) 632 - Dies "Muhammad is a narcissist, a pedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter." Former Muslim Ali Sina offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove otherwise based on Islamic texts. The reward has gone unclaimed.

[Kevin007]

Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (source)	Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (source)
More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (source)	19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years. (source)

[Muwahid]

Ali Sina has been refuted so many times by so many apologists.

570 - Born in Mecca
Yep

576 - Orphaned upon death of mother
Yep

595 - Marries Kadijah - older, wealthy widow
Yep. Many people wanted to marry Khadija, she chose Muhammad ص due to his good character.

610 - Reports first revelations from angel at age of 40
Yep.

619 - Protector uncle dies
Yes, Abu Talib. He loved the prophet even though their religions differed.

622 - Emigrates from Mecca to Medina (the Hijra)
Yes, they were invited there by the Yethribis, and they were being persecuted and tortured in Mecca [The ones without tribal connections]

623 - Orders raids on Meccan caravans
The Meccans looted the Muslims homes, after they left Mecca, and ran a caravan which was looted by the Muslims. Sounds fair to me.

624 - Battle of Badr (victory)
The Meccans were humiliated by the caravan raid, and wanted to destroy Muhammad, he humiliated them again

624 - Evicts Qaynuqa Jews from Medina
Bani Qunayqa breached the pact of Medina, as well as other incidents such as stripping a Muslim woman, Qunayqa was very hostile towards the Muslims.

624 - Orders the assassination of Abu Afak
624 - Orders the assassination of Asma bint Marwan
Both of these reports have faulty or no isnaad [chain of transmission], scholars have deemed them forgeries

624 - Orders the assassination of Ka'b al-Ashraf
Ibn Ishaq notes, that upon hearing people killed in Badr, he went to the Quraysh and began a plot to kill Muhammad. This is why he was killed. Self defense.

625 - Battle of Uhud (defeat)
Yes, the Muslims disobeyed the prophet's orders, and the commander for the Quraysh was Khalid bin al Waleed, later known as the Sword of Allah, a hero for Muslims.

625 - Evicts Nadir Jews
Nadir attempted to attack Muhammad, because they did not like him. Should he have let them kill him?

627 - Battle of the Trench (victory)
Yep.

627 - Massacre of the Qurayza Jews
Bani Qurayza betrayed the Muslims during the battle of the trench. Muhammad then allowed a former Jew whom they still respected to judge their punishment and he judged by MOSAIC LAW

628 - Signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiya with Mecca
Which the Quraysh later broke, when they killed Muslims

628 - Destruction and subjugation of the Khaybar Jews
The Jews of Khaybar were incited Arab tribes to incite violence against the Muslims. They were defeated, after they were defeated they tried to poison the prophet.

629 - Orders first raid into Christian lands at Muta (defeat)
The Arabs whom they were attacking killed Muslim emissaries, a very serious crime in the ancient world. This is why Muslims entered Christian and Persian lands.

630 - Conquers Mecca by surprise (along with other tribes)
Peacefully conquered. And forgave everyone in Mecca, even the ones who had tortured and fought Muslims till the very end. They treated the pagans very nicely, for example the prophet commanded giving the key of the Ka'aba back to Uthman ibn Talha (A pagan) because its his right. That story you can listen to here, it's moving https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb_RhWYiJ98

631 - Leads second raid into Christian territory at Tabuk (no battle)
Same response as Mut'a

632 - Dies
Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Salam


As for the second post... define "Islamic terrorists", who defines who is a terrorist and who isnt... are the insurgents in Iraq terrorists? are hamas terrorists? so many people would disagree... why can't we consider the christian majority US military/government as "terrorists", and find the kill count... hundreds of thousands.

[Kevin007]

1st off, Christians are told do not kill; the vast majority do not. Second of all, Jesus' teachings were in direct opposition to Muhammad. Islam teaches Jews and Christians are pigs, evil etc etc. Muslims are told to befriend them, lie and eventually; when they have the majority- kill them or put them as slaves. Christians who live in an Islamic society pay more in taxes and are killed everyday. Look how many Churches in Africa are burned down by Islamists and women that are raped.

Israel also lets muslim women vote and hold positions in office! Do Islamic countries let Christians and Jews do this? haha!

[Kevin007]

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/qu...3-violence.htm

[pcosmar]

.thereligionofpeace.com[/URL]

You do realize that the site you are quoting is an Anti-Muslim Hate site don't you?

They are as Bent as the Westboro Baptists.

Christians (and Jews) have lived in peace throughout the mid East for centuries prior to the Zionist invasion.
And the Crusades were about Empires... Not about Christ.
There was nothing Christian about the crusades. EVER.

[Kevin007]

You do realize that the site you are quoting is an Anti-Muslim Hate site don't you?

They are as Bent as the Westboro Baptists.

Christians (and Jews) have lived in peace throughout the mid East for centuries prior to the Zionist invasion.
And the Crusades were about Empires... Not about Christ.
There was nothing Christian about the crusades. EVER.

I guess you didn't read the info, sad.

[pcosmar]

I guess you didn't read the info, sad.

I have no more interest in that crap than I do the Zionist bull$#@! being pushed by most churches.
It is pushed to justify our invasion and killings in those countries.

it is the spew used to recruit fighters for a "holy crusade".
The same as the twisted and bent version used by our CIA to recruit Muslim fighters was.

[Kevin007]

pcsomar- when was the last Christian suicide bomber?

[Muwahid]

1st off, Christians are told do not kill; the vast majority do not. Second of all, Jesus' teachings were in direct opposition to Muhammad. Islam teaches Jews and Christians are pigs, evil etc etc. Muslims are told to befriend them, lie and eventually; when they have the majority- kill them or put them as slaves. Christians who live in an Islamic society pay more in taxes and are killed everyday. Look how many Churches in Africa are burned down by Islamists and women that are raped.

Israel also lets muslim women vote and hold positions in office! Do Islamic countries let Christians and Jews do this? haha!

I'm not trying to be rude but you're actually embarrassing yourself at this point.

1 - Christians are taught not to kill: Which religion doesn't prohibit killing i.e., murder? Thou shalt not kill, is found in Islam too, the OT, NT, and Qur'an all allow for self-defense, even Jesus advised his disciples to purchase swords, and the old testament allows killing in self defense explicitly.

2 - Most Christians don't kill: Most Muslims don't kill either, there's 2 billion Muslims, you're telling me the majority kill? But I can bet you this, Christians kill/killed more than Muslims. Wasn't George Bush a Christian? Who ordered the invasion in Iraq, and there are estimations that 2 million died as a result?

3 - Islam doesn't teach Jews and Christians are pigs. The Qur'an says: وَجَعَلَ مِنْهُمُ الْقِرَدَةَ وَالْخَنَازِيرَ (And made from them monkeys and pigs), meaning he transformed some of the Christians and Jews who disbelieved in his message into monkeys and pigs, not to say the Christians and Jews are monkeys, but perhaps a deviant portion of them at some point in time.

4 -

Muslims are told to befriend them, lie and eventually; when they have the majority

Absolutely extraordinary claim. I'll personally pay you money if you can show me this in our holy books.

5 - Christians who live in an Islamic society pay more in taxes and are killed everyday: No they don't and no they aren't. The Jizyah is like a 2% tax, and Christians are allowed to even have their own Christian courts in an Islamic state. You'd probably love it actually.

6 - Look how many Churches in Africa are burned down by Islamists and women that are raped: Listen, you cannot compare with the suffering of Muslims in the world. Have you looked at Israel lately? They've killed over 1000 human beings, destroyed not only mosques, but hospitals and and schools, half of the dead are either elderly, women, or children.

Israel also lets muslim women vote and hold positions in office! Do Islamic countries let Christians and Jews do this? haha!

Yes? Iran allows parliament positions for Christians, Jews, even zoroastrians (fire worshippers). And historically when the [Sunni] Islamic khilaafa flourished non-Muslims were put in positions of power. Take Andalusia. The caliph entrusted a Jew Hasdai ibn Shaprut to be the minister of foreign affairs, and a close counselor. Non-Muslims had respected positions within the Islamic state as well as a degree of self-governance, total religious freedom, and they paid a different tax than Muslims not a higher one. Theirs exempted them from duties to the state such as military service.

But i'd love for you to keep propping Israel up as this bastion of freedom so I can without any effort expose them for what they really are.

verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context

This is actually completely untrue. Find me any violent verse in the Qur'an and I will show you it's historical context --- for example, the verse 2:191 "And kill them where ever you find them" the verse 2:190 says: وَقَـتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَـتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُواْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ (And fight for the sake of Allah, those you fight you, and do not transgress the limits, for Allah does not love transgressors).

See how things change? Historically this was the verse revealed in Medinah allowing Muslims to defend themselves, like in the battles of Badr, Uhd, the Trench, etc. And literally I could do this for all the verses Islam haters use.

Kevin I could do this all day. I don't think you're being dishonest, but I think you're not educated on Islam, which is why you post snippits from Ali Sina. I'm not a Muslim that sugar coats, I teach my religion the way it was supposed to be taught, I am very much a fundamentalist so I have no problem telling you what Islam teaches and doesn't teach. But you're looking for damning evidence, because if you don't find it, your worldview may shatter.

[TER]

Hi Muwahid, sorry for the delay. I hope this can answer some of your questions.

I suppose one question I have is, in the teachings of Jesus does the Church hold such weight and authority over the believers?

In the Holy Bible, the Church is called the Body of Christ. Christ is the Head, and those baptized in Christ consist of the members of the Body.

Were there any allusions to the Church being 'the pillar and foundation of truth'?

The Holy Bible states clearly that the Church is the 'pillar and foundation of the truth'. The Church predates the New Testament and from the Church the New Testament was written and given correct context. The oral tradition existed before the New Testament was applied to parchment, and even if all the New Testament books were to disappear from the face of the earth, it would be the Church which would preserve the teachings of Christ as the pillar and foundation of the truth. Christ did not come down to write a book but to establish His living presence in the world within those who have been baptized in Him. When He ascended to Heaven so that the Holy Spirit could come down and abide in His beloved, it was not books which came down but the very Holy Spirit of God in the form of fiery tongues and into His Apostles. The Bible is an authoritative and indispensable tool in our salvation, but it is Christ working with us, flesh and spirit, which saves us and His Holy Spirit which illuminates, sanctifies and gives knowledge of God.

My contention is not that the Church had scandalous motives, but we know because of the persecution of early Christians very little of the hundreds of thousands of fragments of the gospels exist from earlier than the 2nd centurty, right? So the time between a certain gospel being written, and it's earliest copy (or fragmentations from it) could be well over 100 years.

But they are not over 100 years my friend. Most historians and biblical scholars, even the most cynical ones, date the Gospels within the first century. According to the tradition of the Church, the Gospels were written in the first few decades after Pentecost as was most if not all of the New Testament.

That only fragments of manuscripts remain from these early days 2000 years ago are to be expected, as these were in the days when it was rare for a person to have written books. This is especially true for a Church which was well in the minority and lower socialeconomic stratus, which lived under intense persecution and destruction of their personal properties and many times in hiding.

I am not sure, but is the original Qu'ran still preserved intact from the 7th century? If so, that is amazing. But the circumstances, publishing materials and preservation techniques of the 7th century compared to the 1st century probably do not compare. Even with that in mind, that we do have fragments of manuscripts from so early in the life of the Church is amazing. In fact, most scholars agree that the New Testament is one of the most well-preserved pieces of writings in the history of man.

I have no problem saying much of the word of the bible is the inspired word of God, I've stated many times 90% of what I find in the new testament is nothing against my own religion, what we differ on mainly are the doctrines we follow. There are clear parallels between my doctrine and my holy book, but you have to admit the connection between a triune God and the gospels are ambiguous at best-- is your point that we can be sure the original intent of certain verses because of oral traditions, and that the Christians would not have lost their way in the hundred or so years where there is a gap between the original scriptures and the copies?

I'm just suggesting things get lost in the details, the fine print.

My friend, I am confident things got lost in the details! The Gospels tell of Jesus being surrounded by masses of people, and that the sick and infirmed, the deaf and the blind, the dumb and the mute, were brought to Him, 'and He healed them all' (Matthew 12:15). St. John concludes his gospel by saying that all the books in all the world could not contain the things Christ has done, so of course things got lost in the details. The Gospels were not written as a complete anthology of all the things Christ said and done, such a book couldn't be written and neither was it practical for the ministry the Apostles were given. The Gospel rather where to inform the reader that the Messiah who was prophecized has come, that it is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Virgin Who is the Son of God, the Lord and Savior Who died for our sins and rose from the dead so that we too, in Him, can rise again.

This was the goal of the New Testament, to herald that God our Savior has come down from Heaven and that we too can participate in experiential communion with God through His Holy Spirit. As for trinitarian theology, this was the experience of the Church as lived by its members in sacramental communion with God before debates on trinitarian theology became commonplace. While we might disagree on whether God is revealed as Triune in the New Testament (for you might require more evidence, while to me there is more than enough), the experience of God within the lives of the baptized members of the body of Christ confirms what later would be more clearly delineated and expressed out of necessity due to the rising heresies which threatened the unity of the Church.


And for the early Church, within the oral and written traditions which we find in the New Testament books and the patristic writings of the first two centuries, it is without any doubt or contention that the apostolic faith which was handed down and passed everywhere by the Holy Apostles, that is, the foundational belief and witness of the Church has always been that Jesus is the Son of God, come down from Heaven, and by His death and resurrection, we have been granted access to the Kingdom of God.

[pcosmar]

pcsomar- when was the last Christian suicide bomber?

WWII as far as I know. Though it is possible that there were others less known.
A suicidal attack is an act of desperation.. Used by the Japanese,, and in Vietnam with some success.
And it has been used by Americans in desperate situations too.

I would guess it is much harder to get a Christian to do so. but Sky Pilots in the US Army have psyched up kids to die in every war.

[monte]

where in the Koran does it state this? You are a sinner, correct? How can God be in the presence of sin?

Jesus was in the presence of sin.

[Kevin007]

Jesus was fully man as well. God the Father cannot be. You can easily say the Holy Spirit too.

[Christian Liberty]

@Kevin007 - response to differences between Jesus and Muhammad

1. Christianity believes those who are not Christian are damned to hell, the love of God seems irrelevant at that point

The doctrine that Jesus loves everyone is actually disputed in some higher Calvinist circles. A.W. Pink rejected it, John Robbins rejected it, Gordon Clark rejected it, and Herman Hoeksema rejected it (that's just off the top of my head, there are certainly others.) And I think pretty much all Calvinists would take the position that God's love for the non-elect is overemphasized at the expense of God's justice in many churches today. And, the Bible is very clear that there's at least some sense in which God hate sinners (Psalms 5:5).

I don't care if your Allah hates me. I don't view that as a valid criticism of Islam. The real question is whether you are willing to let us live at peace, even if/as harsh words are exchanged and exclusive claims are made.

I will note, also, that you are correct in discerning that the Bible is very clear that non-Christians will ultimately go to Hell if they die as non-Christians. I fail to see the problem: its not like God is somehow morally obligated to save anybody.

2. Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

While I don't subscribe to strict pacifism, it seems obvious to me that this isn't talking about physical warfare. I understand that this isn't popular with neocons, of course

3. Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Most Christians agree that this particular penal law was intended for Israel alone as the chosen nation. There are a minority of Christians (theonomic reconstructionists), who would disagree with us on this point, and say that adulterers should be executed everywhere. While I disagree with this group, the fact that it exists is enough for me to avoid using this as a serious criticism of Islam. I suspect there are at least some Muslims who don't want to put adulterers to death either. I would simply object to anyone, Christian or not, who wants to put such people to death today. Consider how Paul handled an adulterous situation in 1 Corinthians 5 (Here's a hint: he didn't whine to the Roman authorities)

4. Stealing is one of the most severe sins in Islam. Yes, even from non Muslims, here is a fatwa (religious verdict) from Imam Ash-Shafi'i about taking wealth from non-Muslims.


Thus the onle time it's permissible is a time of war, which is spoils of war, who would disagree with that?

Spoils of war taken from whom? If you're talking about the government of an aggressive nation, fine (although even better would be to give that money back to the civilians of that country, who rightfully own it.) If, on the other hand, you are taking the position that it is morally OK to plunder CIVILIANS in war, even just wars, I would strongly object.

5.Lying is a major sin in Islam. Lying was only permitted in certain circumstances, many uneducated use "taqiyyah" as an example, in reality taqiyyah as allowed by the prophet was the permissibility to lie that you are not Muslim, to stop the Quraysh from torture. There were a few other allowances in lying, such as white lies, to spare feelings, etc.

I think this is a major watering down of the BIBLICAL teaching on lying. Mind you, I get it. I'd probably lie to prevent being tortured to, and I have certainly told half-truths in certain situations because its easier. But, I admit that I'm a sinner and that's why I need Jesus. Islam, it seems, is lowering the standard so that Muslims can meet the standard. And this is why Islam is so dangerous. Its not because I think you guys want to harm me (I believe you when you say you don't), its because Islam lowers the standard and says that people can be made acceptable to God by works.

6. Slavery in Islam is actually a interesting topic. We aren't even allowed to call them "slaves", nor can they call us "master", and they can not be obtained through a slave trade, but only if they were captured during war-time, in other words they transgressed against you, and this is their punishment rather than execution or imprisonment.

Here are some Hadiths on slavery in Islam


The other part is, that Islam commands you to release your slave, if they wish to be released by allowing them to buy back their freedom with work. Scholars say this is obligatory, and some say mustahhab which is highly recommended, but nevertheless this is a far cry from the chattel slavery of the western world.

I can live with this, as far as it goes, if the war in question is justifiable. I don't think its ideal (especially since soldiers are generally brainwashed mercenaries anyway) but I can live with it.

10. Yes martyrdom is one of the best things you can do for your faith. Not seeing the problem.

Can you define "Jihad" for us? Also, I'm not sure exactly how you reconcile this with the idea that its morally acceptable to lie about one's faith to avoid being tortured.

11. And how many wives to Soloman have? 1 Kings 11:3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.

Even in the verse itself, it seems obvious that God is condemning Solomon's actions. Was God OK with Muhammad's polygamy? Heck, is Muhammad a sinner according to you guys? Is the sex slave part false?

12. His wife Aisha, reached the age of puberty. The question I would pose to theists and non-theists alike, is why would sex be forbidden after puberty? Why would God make the body ready to procreate, or why would nature make it possible if it shouldn't happen?

This is just gross, regardless of how you justify it. You know that its wrong for an adult to sleep with a 9 year old. God made it possible to rape people to, does that mean its OK? And yes, having sex with a 9 year old for ANY reason is rape unless you are also close to age 9. This is a point that I'm not going to be able to get away from. At the risk of sounding "blasphemous", I think its fair to call Muhammad a pedophile for this one. And, for what its worth, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so I'm no stranger to the idea of condemning people harshly for things that are seen as socially normal. Its actually quite painful at times. I think I'm qualified to judge here.

15. So?

Well, its fairly important to libertarians: Maybe the actions were defensive (I honestly do not know) but that statistic does look bad by itself. I can see why you'd laugh at a neocon who objects to it, but for us it does make sense.

18. Torture is forbidden in Islam. I can post detailed rules regarding POWs, and treatment of prisoners.

That would be interesting and helpful.

19. This is regarding the specific conflict at the time.

Hold on, earlier you said torture was ALWAYS wrong. I don't know what the reference is, but is torture occasionally acceptable or always wrong?

20. Actually he was angry, that a Jewish woman was killed, but it was revealed she was insulting the prophet and refused to stop, thus no blood money was paid.

Now that's just ridiculous. A system that makes insults a justification or even a mitigating factor for murder, even if she "refuses to stop", is downright disgusting. The only possible way you'd have out of this is to claim that Muhammad acted inappropriately.

23. Wow they prayed with weapons. So tragic.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Oh the horror

25. "Others", or "Those who wage war against Allah and his apostle"?

Who started the war? Also, I do find the idea that Muhammad is "Allah's apostle" to be inaccurate (or that your "Allah" even exists, for that matter... I know Arab Christians use the term "Allah" but it isn't the same thing)... I don't know whether or not your argument depends on that or not though.

26. Jesus was never crucified though.

First of all, the Bible is clear that he was, so the Qu'ran is simply wrong (2 Timothy 3:16). But more importantly, I would think that IF Muhammad advocated crucifixion that that would be quite awful.

The rest I wont even respond to because, by what measure are these obviously biased suggestion coming from... "most famous Muslim... Osama Bin Laden" ??? What? And the Christian legacy is one of freedom??? What about the Spanish inquisition? How many Muslims died from Ferdinand and Isabella?? You kidding me? SLAVERY ABOLISHED IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY? LOL. I can't even read that drivel.

I thought the worse part was that the "most famous Christian" is the pope Identifying Christianity with the Roman Catholic Church State completely destroys any credibility that the guy might have had. The Pope isn't even a Christian, which is made painfully obvious by even skimming Galatians.

Did Jesus reject the way of the Jews?

This is what's funny about you guys. Jesus came to correct the Jews, and specifically said he did not want to abolish their laws, well in their laws is what? The same types of punishments Islam carries... death penalties for things like adultery, apostacy... in fact some of these things carried over into the New Testament.

Matthew 15:4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.'

Jesus wasn't advocating continuance of the Old Testament penal law (although even if he was it isn't relevant: Christ hadn't been crucified yet, so the law was still supposed to be in force as it hadn't been fulfilled), he was condemning the hypocrisy of the Pharisees for saying that certain people didn't have to honor their parents. Again, I won't die on this hill as there are Christians (theonomic reconstructionists) who want those kinds of laws today, but I do think their interpretation of scripture is flawed.

And even when Jesus would condemn stoning for example, it wasn't even to say we don't allow this anymore, but rather to say, you people are not real followers of the faith, so who are you to make judgements like this? Who would argue with that? If a judge is not qualified to pass judgement their judgement is void. But Christians have taken it to mean, look! He abolished stoning!

I actually disagree with the general premise of this. First of all, nobody was "without sin" except Christ himself (And he didn't stone her anyway.) Second of all, I think a hypocritical judge can still make a valid judgment. If the US government were to have tried Osama Bin Laden, proven his guilt in planning the 9/11 attacks, and put him to death, the punishment would still be "valid", in that Bin Laden deserved the penalty he received through due process, even though the US government would be hypocritical in passing such a judgment because they have murdered more people than Bin Laden did.

How can a logical person accept such statements? Death penalties, fighting, war, etc. are all present in the bible, Jesus said he did not come to abolish those laws of the Jews, but then modern Christians say, you know what we're just not going to follow all of these laws anymore.

Its really not as simple as that, but if I recall correctly you only accept the authority of Jesus Christ, not the apostles that succeeded him, which would be part of the issue.

Who knows maybe these are sentiments from the Apostolic conference where it seems Christians arbitrarily decided new converts did not have to abide by Jewish laws, but only a few of them (how did they figure this out?). So the doctrine pretty much replaced Jewish ideas with man-made ideas. Lets face it... Whats in the Jewish books is from God right? Christians should accept that right? But what about what came about from the Ecumenical councils? The Canons from the first Ecumenical councils all appear to be... just made up, man made laws, regulations, rules, which have no bearing in actual scripture.

The NT books are scriptural as well. God told them that the ceremonial and penal laws were no longer binding.

Thus, much of the rules, regulations, what you follow what you dont follow in Christianity, is due to man-made early Christian revisions, to make their religion palatable so they may proselytize to the gentiles. Because hey, God said get circumcised, but saying that to an adult male would be... maybe shocking? So lets just let that one slide.

Hold on, so by "early Christian revisions" you mean Jesus' own brother and his handpicked disciples/apostles? Biblical history shows us that damnable heresy can seep into the church even in one generation (again, see the book of Galatians), and at least some of the so-called "church fathers" subscribed to damnable heresy and thus were not Christians, but I think its kind of ridiculous to suggest that the mainline church was corrupt by the Jerusalem Council.

jmdrake I didn't dispute the divorce point for a reason, it was explicit. I'm saying we need to measure everything by how explicit it is. Jesus not doing something, does not mean he abolished the general rule, but perhaps made an exception. I believe that to be a more rational argument than to assume anything we dislike in the old testament had been abolished.

I think we had a similar talk about slavery. It's something that exists in the OT, it doesn't appear to be abolished explicitly in the NT, and Christians had no problem having slaves historically but now we say, oh no it was abolished slavery is forbidden... convenient.

You know, I think I have an interesting perspective on this as an ancap. Most Christians today still support slavery in a modified form. Its really hypocritical of them to be overly critical of people from the past who didn't explicitly condemn chattel slavery, yet continue to support compulsory taxation and the draft, which are only different in degree rather than kind. I figure I'm at least a hundred years ahead of my time, and thus qualified to condemn people, past or present, who use the Bible (or the Qu'ran, whatever) to support things that are blatantly immoral.

What you are doing with the slavery passages in the Bible kind of reminds me of what Christians today often do with Romans 13. It misses the point. Biblical principle and basic logic tell us that slavery (or the State) are not justifiable.

[Christian Liberty]

2 - Most Christians don't kill: Most Muslims don't kill either, there's 2 billion Muslims, you're telling me the majority kill? But I can bet you this, Christians kill/killed more than Muslims. Wasn't George Bush a Christian? Who ordered the invasion in Iraq, and there are estimations that 2 million died as a result?

I will freely agree that MANY Christians are overly supportive of war, but GWB is an inclusivist, and thus not a Christian. He believes "good" Muslims go to heaven. Now, I understand how you might feel about the alternative position as a Muslim, but the Christian position on this is very clear, people are only saved through Christ.

[erowe1]

has anyone done an in depth study on muhammad? He was a pretty evil person.

Is post 213 what you meant when you said "in depth study"?