Posted on 04/02/2005 11:38:43 AM PST by quidnunc
No, Jesus is God the Son, He has always been with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. His ministry began with the Creation.
Buddah is just some guy that lived then died.
Bible quotes are tricky on these threads-- we're either editing the Sacred Text or flaming the FR (both of which are forbidden). Your excerpt of Mathew 24 stops with the two verses that say not to believe false prophets. That's the easy part and I usually like to stop there too. The hard part is the next thirty some verses that say to keep your eyes and ears open for the real ones.
The prophets came after Moses and foretold of the Messiah. Christians see fulfillment of these prophecies in Jesus Christ. There are no prophecies for Islam to fulfill as the only prophecies made in the New Testament deal with the end times, not a future prophet.
And no, most Israelites did not become Christians, and most Christians did not become Muslims. Where on Earth did you get your info?
And, at one time, there was a copy of the Koran in my collection. I say "was" because I became so disgusted when reading it, I closed it about half way through and dropped it in the garbage.
And that was before 9-11.
The only other book I've thrown away like that was Mein Kampf.
Boiled down to their root messages, Mein Kampf and the Koran preach the same hatred for mankind.
Even an agnostic such as myself knows that the question "Does Islam Improve On Christianity" is, on it's face, so absurd as to be unworthy of serious consideration.
Islam is terribly inconsistent. Firstly, Mohammed and Islam admit the Bible, both Old and New Testaments are divinely inspired, but then denies the claims of the New Testament as to the Divinity, Crucifixion, Atonement and Resurrection of Christ.
How exactly is that accomplished?
Islam improves NOTHING--it is a cult of death.
That's okay because it seems entirely logical. But once you turn to the texts of the Torah and the New Testament, you'd quickly find that no such replacement occurs. Christian texts don't "replace" anything. But they do fulfill them. In fact, you can't even have a New Testament without the Old, for you would have nothing to compare and/or validate the New.
God's promises to Abraham, thus Israel, are valid today as they were when they were written. Replacement Theology teaches that God is completely finished with Israel and the Jews. This, then, would make God out to be a liar.
Check here for more info: Replacement Theology
"Replacement Theology" is a perjorative term created by Dispensationalists as a misnomer for Covenant Theology. There is no "replacement" of Israel with the Church in Covenant Theology, that is a myth created by Dispensationalists. In Covenant Theology Israel is not "replaced", it's expanded to include Jews and Gentiles.
Christianity is inconsistent. First it admits the Old Testament is divinely inspired then denies most of the laws of God as described in the Book of Leviticus.
Actually, your use of the term is accurate whereas the Dispensationalist use isn't.
"Replacement Theology" is a pejorative term created by Dispensationalists for Covenant Theology which is the expansion of Israel to include Gentiles into the Church.
No, Christians do not deny the Levitical Law, we recognize the context those laws were given. Many of the civil laws are still in practice and are incorporated in our legal system of today. The ceremonial laws were for the old covenant and pointed to Messiah. Messiah fulfilled those laws, thus they are no longer applicable.
What do I win?
It's a tough cross to bear ;)
No, it simply says that the Law has been fulfilled and thus no longer applies. Whether you agree with that belief or not, it never denies that the Law was indeed handed down by God.
Matthew 26:27-29
27Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."
Good census data for the period 1 AD to 700 AD is hard to come by. Just the same, there was once a time that most of them that considered the Ten Commandments to be sacred were Jews, and later most of those guys were Christians. I realize that some say a Jew is not a Christian and a Christian is not a Jew. I'd argue that you can't be true to the Torah and deny Christ, and that to be a Christian you can't just chuck the old Testament. Sort of like "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me".
During the first half millennium, there were five major cities with bishops- Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. All but one spoke Greek (the language of the Gospels) and Latin was the home language of just the Roman church. Since then, four out of five went for Islam. Of course, during the past half millennium something really deferent's seemed to have happened that's changed everything, but I digress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.