Islamic Trajectories in Early Christianity 2/6

[melmeshad]

this is in no ways what's used to legitimize islam. don't get carried away by your own biasses, insecurities, and biggotry. why couldn't you look at it as a way to bring muslims and christians together instead of immediately attacking something because it slightly (or greatly) shakes what you believe in? if you are seriously interested in figuring out truth from falsehood, I suggest you go out and SEARCH.

[zafthedon]

by the way hes not proving anything - is he telling you this is the proof NO - hes showing how fragmented your religion was in the early times and how muslims could draw conclusion from it - nothing whats so ever to do with proving anything - other then telling you that there are more versions of christainty then Mr Pauls

[shamounian]

The only way he can draw any conclusions to legitimize Islam is by selectively choosing whatever beliefs from these groups he likes, but then ignoring all the others that refute and expose Muhammad. For example, if you accept the gnostic or docetic rejection of Jesus' crucifixion then you must accept their belief that Jesus was fully Divine and wasn't truly human since matter is evil. And a Divine Jesus wouldn't take a material body.

[zafthedon]

salaam

what about the ebonites and the early Jerusalem church more importantly.

[zafthedon]

you know the people that kept Mosiac law and believed in Jesus pbuh as the messiah but not divine. As we know most of early history of christainty is in mystery anyway.

[zafthedon]

all the groups are individual groups - he called to them showing that there was a belief that christ did not die - as people laugh at this assertion - it isnt a uncommon belief in christain history that christ didnt die.

[zafthedon]

thats the main point.

[ArmenFirman01]

@shamounian Islam is a religin that stands by itself! It neither needs christianity nor Judaism or any other religion to legitimize itself! If I use the same argument as you most of the beliefs of these groups refute and expose Paul of Tarsus the prophet of modern Christianity! Besides, the devinity of Jesus is central in Pauline Christianity, while in islam only God is devine and Jesus is only one of the numerous God's prophets!

[zafthedon]

nobody is talking about Muhammad pbuh - we're talking about the early church and how it could be seen in the light of Islam and the Qurans position whcih you clearly have not read.

[shamounian]

This guy is just too much. He forgets to mention that the group which Ignatius was attacking (otherwise known as scholars call gnostics, and also as docetists) believed in multiple gods, that Christ is a fully divine being, and that matter was evil. Becuase of their view of matter they didn't believe that a Divine Christ would become flesh since flesh was evil.

[shamounian]

So they came up with the theory that his body was a phantasm, not real, or in the case of what some of these later groups believed, Christ united to the human Jesus and then departed from him when he was cruficied. Again, if what these groups believed were true then Muhammad is a false prophet for denying the divinity of Christ and for affirming his real humanity. Anyway, this guy's lies make me sick. If Muslims have to use such lies to convince others of believing then Islam is a lie itself

[zafthedon]

salaam

no hes telling you how fragmneted christainty was and that Pauline doctorine wasnt the only doctrine on the menu. Furthermore hes only "lying" to you beacsue hes showing you that there were many opther movements out there that had a very different idea of christ.

[zafthedon]

Agian clearly showing you havent read the Quran - there were many people still that didnt believe he was crucified in early christainty - again showing that your pauline version could be wrong. People like you make me sick that dont even know how divided early christainty was. Heavily divided.

[shamounian]

It seems that I am talking to a brick wall. These were NOT early Christianities, i.e. views held and taught by the disciples of Christ. Most of the groups he is talking about only flourished in the 2nd century. Besides, if these alternate versions are legit then Muhammad is a false prophet. Stop ignoring that fact.

[zafthedon]

salaam

these were not early chrisatins ?????

The Jewish christains???

the ebonites, the Nazerenes, - rejected the idea of the mosiac law being abrogated by Paul.

what about the

THE JERUSALEM CHURCH - that has to be part of early christainty.

[shamounian]

Ebionites? The Jews who were vegetarians and denied Jesus' virgin birth? Again if these are the true followers of Jesus then Muhammad is again proven to be a false prophet for teaching such things as the virgin birth. You can't have yiour cake and eat it too, if these gorups are right then Muhammad is wrong. Take your pick.

[zafthedon]

salaam

what syour proof that they were vegeterian - some poor people like the ebonites couldnt offord meat anyway. as the ebonites were mostly poor people.

[shamounian]

The proof comes from the very same sources that your fake scholar is using. They didn't eat meat, not because they were poor, but because in their view it was unlawful. So get your facts straight.

[shamounian]

The Elkesaites? You mean Jews who taught that even though Christ is but a created being he is the greatest of creatures, being Lord over angels as well as over every other created thing? Jews who called Jesus the Great King? The ones who baptized with the formula, In the name of the Most High God and of His Son, the Great King? That group which proves that Muhammad was a false prophet for holding to different beliefs?

[zafthedon]

Salaam

there were many sects who were against Pauline Doctorine - which is the one that won over the church - all the sects are also against Paul showing that paul had his own ideas and not realy divine knowlegde. You cant realy proove what these sects actually believed in. The closest thing I could say is that the Jewish christains who worshipped God alone and kept the commandments were the true followers of Jesus pbuh.

[shamounian]

Thanks for contradicting yourself. If I can't prove what they really believed in then NEITHER CAN YOU PROVE THAT THEY THEIR BELIEFS WERE CONTRARY TO PAUL. Again, I am using the same soruces that this pseudo-scholar is using. So if his sources are good enough to prove his case then they are good enough to expose him.

[zafthedon]

salaam

again thats why he said "apparntly". Its so clear that there were may versions of christainty - so you have absloutly no idea that he is lying otherwies your a pseudo intllect yourself.

[zafthedon]

furthermore what your saying could be applied back to your beliefs too that these sects show that the pauline doctrine was clearly false and in open error. The virgin birth again who would know expect Mary or God.

I would also advice you to read the Quran - whilst the bible doesnt talk about mary that much the Quran mentions her quite a lot even naming a chapter after her. Its a pity nothing of hers survives today again shwoing the fragmented History of christianity.

[zafthedon]

salaam

you have no idea of TRUE teachings of christ with all the early sects who know what they were??? you ahve the church that preety much silenced all the other groups - so we only ahve fragmnets left.