If Islam is a continuation of Chistianity, why don't Christians become muslim?

Jul 2010
6,851
Not sure what it is
God kept It secret because God who is the creator and ordainer of all wasnt abble to explain trinity to Adam, Noah, Abraham.... Am I correct in my understanding?
The Bible never says Adam, Noah, et al. didn't understand Trinity. Trinity is a concept that we later humans use to conceptualize the mystery of God. Adam et al. just didn't call it Trinity like we do.

What is the sense in defining God with trinity?
Then what is the sense of Muslims calling God holy, just, merciful if God is not to be bound by any quality? Of course God is infinite and undefinable. But in order for God to interact with us humans, God has to make a part of Himself definable so we can understand Him. So He would make sense to us.
 
Mar 2012
567
Baltimore, Maryland
I am unable to understand why It took thousands and thousands years to explain It. God is limited with mans ability. Isn't It God who create the man?
You're being daft. It didn't take thousands of years. I have already shown where the Most Holy Trinity is revealed in the beginning of Genesis. The Holy Ghost is mentioned many many times throughout the OT.
In addition, i have explained that God revealing Himself slowly is because of man's inability, not Gods. Man is finite. If you can comprehend your god then he isn't infinite and therefore he isn't God.
If the capable God wished he could even make us all Muslim.
Making converts is different from fitting the infinite into the finite.

I don't think I can. And I don't. I don't also apply nature to God.
Yes you do. You reject the Most Holy Trinity because you can't understand. Therefore you expect to understand God's Nature.
Not sure what applying nature to God means? Are you claiming He doesn't have a nature?

Muslims reject trinity, they don't reject God, they aren't unbeliever as you aren't.
According to Christianity, they do reject God. If you don't accept the Trinity, then you don't accept God.
You limit God in a body (Jesus), locate him on earth walking eating, on ground. One of the three is wandering around as holly ghost. The father is resting on the clouds because he got tired after creation.
I don't limit God. The Second Person of the Trinity took our human nature. We didn't limit Him, He humbled Himself and He didn't give up His Divinity to do so. Our Lord has Two Natures.
The Holy Ghost is "wandering around"? Could I get a verse on that? God is resting in the clouds? I assume you mean after creation. Again, you want man to comprehend God then get mad when God uses human terms to help us understand:
He rested, &c. That is, he ceased to make any new kinds of things. Though, as our Lord tells us, John v. 17. He still worketh, viz. by conserving and governing all things, and creating souls. (Challoner) --- Seventh day. This day was commanded, Exodus xx. 8, to be kept holy by the Jews, as it had probably been from the beginning. Philo says, it is the festival of the universe, and Josephus asserts, there is no town which does not acknowledge the religion of the sabbath. But this point is controverted, and whether the ancient patriarchs observed the seventh day, or some other, it is certain they would not fail, for any long time, to shew their respect for God's worship, and would hardly suffer a whole week to elapse without meeting to sound forth his praise. The setting aside of stated days for this purpose, is agreeable to reason, and to the practice of all civilized nations. As the Hebrews kept Saturday holy, in honour of God's rest, so we keep the first day of the week, by apostolic tradition, to thank God for the creation of the world on that day, and much more for the blessings which we derive from the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the sending down of the Holy Ghost, which have given it a title above all other days. (Haydock) --- On the seventh day, at the beginning of this verse, must be taken exclusively, as God finished his work on the 6th, whence the same Septuagint and Syriac have here on the 6th day. (Haydock) --- But the Hebrew and all the other versions agree with the Vulgate. (Calmet) --- The similarity of ver. 6 and ver. 7 in Hebrew may have given rise to this variation. (Haydock)





But he is beyond any nature you could apply to him. I reject trinity, because I have no reason to believe this, also because describable creator conflict with being a creator. Trinity describe God as three in one. Not to mention other description in Bible.
He applies this nature to Himself. You have reason to accept this because it's in Scripture and was preached by the prophets, patriarchs, Our Lord, and the Church Fathers.
Again we have no disagreement that God is one. I don't force that you are idol worshiper. I criticize you.
Criticize unjustly. We don't worship idols. Images aren't idols, they can't be, but they aren't just by their nature. And we don't worship images. Hindus worship idols. Big contrast between them and Christians who pray to God and use the image for lifting our minds to Heaven.


So what is number three applied to, yet in three in one way?
We aren't applying a number. That is His Nature- it's Triune. Yes, 3 Persons, One God. Consubstantial.


Do you tell these in red believing in It or out of sensitiveness?
Pure fact, no emotion about it.
We are arguing your rejection of Kuran. Trinity is the main reason because It is the main conflict.
Right, because humans can't understand God's Nature, they reject Him.

Even unitarian Christians could be regarded as muslim , jews are very close to Islam. But Christians are far different in their ways of religion of Abraham.
Not according to Scripture. Christianity is the fulfillment of what Abraham believed.
A question to think on. When Muslims and Jews pray to the Creator, do they pray another creator than yours?
Not another creator, but a demon.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

St. Francis of Assisi (+ c. 1210): [To the Muslims] “We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us.”

Their difference is that they find describing God in one way or another is problematic. Yet trinity verily describe God in Its own way.
Jews today, not the Jews of the OT.


I cant see any rudeness from your side to my personality. I don't expect either. But It is possible that there could be emotional wordings from your side and my side as well as in "*extremelly* different"
That's good because I am not trying to be rude. But with such a senstive topic, toes are bound to get stepped on. I'm assuming you want honest answers.
I am not in position to judge you as idol worshiper, believer or unbeliever.
1 Corinthians 6:3
Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things of this world?




If you simply say, "I believe in one God," I cant dare to call you none believer no matter how conflicting trinity and other things are. I am not judger on religion It is the God allmighty.
This is another difference between our religions. We are to judge. How can you avoid sin or rebuke the sinner if you don't?
 
Islam is not a continuation of Christianity. It claims that the Christians and Jews changed the bible (which muslims consider as divine revelation - but, as I said, changed) and thus wandered away from the truth. Islam is not a continuation, but rather a correction in muslim eyes.
Plenty of archeological findings of early bible manuscripts show that this claim is wrong, though. This leads to the simple conclusion that islam is wrong and therefore no continuation but a wrong teaching.
 

Rasta

Ad Honoris
Aug 2009
21,071
Minnesnowta
Islam is not a continuation of Christianity. It claims that the Christians and Jews changed the bible (which muslims consider as divine revelation - but, as I said, changed) and thus wandered away from the truth. Islam is not a continuation, but rather a correction in muslim eyes.
Plenty of archeological findings of early bible manuscripts show that this claim is wrong, though. This leads to the simple conclusion that islam is wrong and therefore no continuation but a wrong teaching.
It's not so clear cut I think.

From the late 19th century there was a general consensus among secular scholars around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the first four books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source.[5] This approach is viewed largely as obsolete today,[6] and while the identification of distinctive Deuteronomistic and Priestly theologies and vocabularies remains widespread, they are used to form new approaches suggesting that the books were combined gradually over time by the slow accumulation of "fragments" of text, or that a basic text was "supplemented" by later authors/editors.[7] At the same time there has been a tendency to bring the origins of the Pentateuch further forward in time, and the most recent proposals place it in 5th century Judah under the Persian empire.[8]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible]Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
It is clear cut, at least the question of manipulation/changing the bible.

I say this from the perspective of a theology student who is familiar with the findings. Maybe you should do some research on the "Qumran" scrolls, Old Testament scrolls that date back to the time of Jesus and show that the Jews did not change the Old Testament (the 2000 year old scrolls are practically identical to the modern Old Testament), and thus proof islam wrong.
In fact, you can compare a Isaiah role from 2000 years ago with the book of Isaiah today and see that it has not been altered.

Also, about 99,X per cent of the New Testament text are regarded as the original version. This is possible, because literally thousands of manuscripts from the first centuries, that can be dated, have been found.

Islam is simply wrong here. The bible has not been altered. And therefore Islam is not a correction, but the very thing it accuses Judaism and Christianity to be: an altered fake version of the original.

You refer to questions about the authors of different bible books. Indeed there are unsolved questions in this area. However, islam claims that the books were altered, and here it is proven wrong.
 
Last edited:

Rasta

Ad Honoris
Aug 2009
21,071
Minnesnowta
Homo Badensis said:
I say this from the perspective of a theology student who is familiar with the findings. Maybe you should do some research on the "Qumran" scrolls, Old Testament scrolls that date back to the time of Jesus and show that the Jews did not change the Old Testament (the 2000 year old scrolls are practically identical to the modern Old Testament), and thus proof islam wrong.
Yes, I am familiar with those findings. That would be an excellent point if Judaism was developed in the time of Jesus.

The destruction of the second temple changed the focus of Judaic religious practice. No longer was the Jewish religion based on temple worship but focused on the holy text. This is also the period that some scholars suggest that Biblical literalism was developed.

It makes sense too as they wanted to preserve their cultural tradition, but had lost the central aspect to their culture and tradition. So just because there has not been change over the last two thousand years does not mean that there was no change previously, especially considering that evidence points to it being developed in the 5th century BC.

Tradition states it should be the 15th century BC if memory serves me correct.
 
That´s right, the question when the OT books were originally written is not solved yet.
However, the question about the authenticity of our New Testament text is solved. And therefore the muslim claim, that Jews and Christians altered the bible, is wrong. At least the Christians certainly did not alter it. And with Jews there is no evidence that they altered it, but evidence that they did not change it for about 2000 years.

And there is another problem for islam: The claim is, that the original texts were divinely inspired. With the New Testament text it is practically sure that we have almost the 100% exact original text. Now this text that - contrary to the muslim claim - has not been altered, repeatedly refers to the Old Testament (which back then was the same version as what we have now) as divinely inspired.
Therefore indirectly, following muslim logics, the Old Testament isn´t changed, either.
 

Rasta

Ad Honoris
Aug 2009
21,071
Minnesnowta
That´s right, the question when the OT books were originally written is not solved yet.
However, the question about the authenticity of our New Testament text is solved. And therefore the muslim claim, that Jews and Christians altered the bible, is wrong. At least the Christians certainly did not alter it. And with Jews there is no evidence that they altered it, but evidence that they did not change it for about 2000 years.
I see what you are saying. Thanks for clarifying.