Angels Bringing False Gospels

[Pard]

Galatians 1:6-9 -

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Mohammad, the Muslim prophet, was given his false gospel from the angel Gabriel. Paul is very clear when he says that we should never accept another Gospel, even if it comes from the angels, for it is surely a false Gospel.

The Muslims will undoubtedly argue that the New Testament is false and no one should listen to it, however this prophecy from Paul was made well before Islam came to be, and in fact is in original scriptures that date to before the creation of Islam (more than 600 years before Islam, actually). One cannot simply dismiss this as "corruption", because it is a rather true prophecy.

Another example of angels bringing false gospels is seen in the Mormon church. Joseph Smith received the Mormon gospel from an angel named Maroni. Again, Paul is very clear that we must not listen to angels bringing false gospels, as they are surely tricks and lies.

The Mormons also have an argument for this passage, though I have read about four or five various authors speak on it and I cannot fathom what it is they are trying to say. They use something that resembles circular logic and/or completely ignore verse 8, which speaks of angels bringing false prophecy.

 

[seekandlisten]

Mohammad, the Muslim prophet, was given his false gospel from the angel Gabriel. Paul is very clear when he says that we should never accept another Gospel, even if it comes from the angels, for it is surely a false Gospel.

Yet Jesus said 'for whoever is not against us is for us.' Look at what was written back then and then look at what dogmas and doctrines are in place today and tell me where the 'gospel' of love and unity went that Jesus spoke of when he said 'love your neighbor as yourself' and when he spoke of the believers by saying 'that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.' Where did the unity go that Mohammed spoke of when he stated;

Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabaeans,
Those who believe in God and the Last Day
And who do well
Have their reward with their Lord.
They have nothing to fear,
And they will not sorrow. (Qur'an: 2:62 and 5:69)

The Muslims will undoubtedly argue that the New Testament is false and no one should listen to it, however this prophecy from Paul was made well before Islam came to be, and in fact is in original scriptures that date to before the creation of Islam (more than 600 years before Islam, actually). One cannot simply dismiss this as "corruption", because it is a rather true prophecy.

Did you know that only 8 of the 27 books of the NT were written by the authors they are attributed too? Prof. Bart D. Ehrman has some good info in regards to this as well as Isaac Newton if you wish to look into it.

One could also make the argument that Muhammed was necessary to reaffirm that God was one as the doctrine of the trinity had been implemented in the legal form of Christianity.

Another example of angels bringing false gospels is seen in the Mormon church. Joseph Smith received the Mormon gospel from an angel named Maroni. Again, Paul is very clear that we must not listen to angels bringing false gospels, as they are surely tricks and lies.

Yet the 'message' was still the same it just got lost once again in the 'details'.

Does 'false gospel' to you mean that which doesn't come in the form of the Bible and the interpretations agreed on by one of the 30,000 denominations?

We are also given this tidbit of information that we can recognize the difference between the 'real' gospel and the false gospel by its 'fruit'. We are even given 'definitions' of what this 'fruit' would be.

cheers

 

[Mike]

Yet Jesus said 'for whoever is not against us is for us.' Look at what was written back then and then look at what dogmas and doctrines are in place today and tell me where the 'gospel' of love and unity went that Jesus spoke of when he said 'love your neighbor as yourself' and when he spoke of the believers by saying 'that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.' Where did the unity go that Mohammed spoke of when he stated;

Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabaeans,
Those who believe in God and the Last Day
And who do well
Have their reward with their Lord.
They have nothing to fear,
And they will not sorrow. (Qur'an: 2:62 and 5:69)

seekandlisten, it's been a while since we chatted. I hope you're doing well. I don't think pointing out false prophets and loving your enemy are mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue, it is out of love (or it should be) that we point out false prophets. I know you have a much more inclusive culmination of various religions that collectively represent the greater truth than the biblical Christian does. You do have the background to know that we are bound by scripture to stay the course in our faith and not veer. You will say I'm too narrow minded. I will say Jesus said the Road is narrow. I don't make the "rules". I accept them; humble myself to them.

My understanding is that Mohammed's revelations came in waves. Some were more militant in nature, and some were more peaceful. It's my understanding that his final revelation was more peaceful, and that although a newer revelation that contradicted an older one of his should have negated the older ones, this didn't happen. His last revelation (which was more peaceful) wasn't adopted as the need to defend the faith placed greater importance on his more militant revelations, and so we have Islam as it is today. I'm sure MA and/or you will correct me, and say I'm wrong. I would be interested to hear a response to this understanding, but it wouldn't change the fact that he did have some revelations that we not nearly as peaceful as the one you cited and that this gospel draws people away from The Gospel.

Seekandlisten, you know from our discussion a while back, I cited a number of verses from the Koran that are violent in nature toward those outside the faith. They are there. And again, without getting personal and insulting to the Muslim or the Mormon, we can and should (according to our faith) point out false prophets. The wrath the false prophets deserve shouldn't be cast upon those who are simply placing their faith in the wrong God. They need to be loved and invited into the Christian faith. False prophets?... woe to them.

Does 'false gospel' to you mean that which doesn't come in the form of the Bible and the interpretations agreed on by one of the 30,000 denominations?

Differences in issues that don't impact our salvation are not to be compared to false gospels that steer us in another direction from the True One. Different denominations that hold the core tenets of Christianity are very much in agreement with things that really matter. Side issues are interesting to discuss but need not divide us.

Be blessed,
Mike

 

[Pard]

A false gospel is anything that doesn't lead us to the grace (Heaven) of God.

There may be 30,000 denominations, as you put it, (though I argue that there there are far fewer and who ever compiled this number was trying to find the biggest number possible) but I have no doubt that of those 30,000 denominations the vast majority of the true believers will see the grace of God.

Denominations are really only divided on tradition and lesser nuances of the Bible. Heck, I have no idea what separates my denomination from the Baptists or the Presbyterians, and I frankly don't care, because denominations do not decide salvation, and anyone who is telling you that is either catholic or a bit nutty.

And perhaps Mohammad said that, and it's sure a nice thought (though, I hardly see any Muslims living out that verse), but Jesus said that no one can come to the Father but through him. I'm gonna stick with the Son of God on this one...

 

[seekandlisten]

A false gospel is anything that doesn't lead us to the grace (Heaven) of God.

Why does one need to be lead to the grace of God? Isn't it there, available to everyone according to the Bible? Jesus said it was as simple as giving someone a glass of water.

I would put the trinity, once saved always saved, my religion is the only 'way', up as doctrines that would be considered a false gospel. Now some would agree and some would disagree that neither makes me right or wrong because I could find just as much support from the Bible for my position as someone who would claim these to be true so we come to a point where it comes down to what one wants to believe and not an absolute position.

There may be 30,000 denominations, as you put it, (though I argue that there there are far fewer and who ever compiled this number was trying to find the biggest number possible) but I have no doubt that of those 30,000 denominations the vast majority of the true believers will see the grace of God.

The 'Church' spoke of in the Bible would not be divided so whether there is 30,000 variations or 10,000, there is still division that isn't supposed to be there.

Denominations are really only divided on tradition and lesser nuances of the Bible. Heck, I have no idea what separates my denomination from the Baptists or the Presbyterians, and I frankly don't care, because denominations do not decide salvation, and anyone who is telling you that is either catholic or a bit nutty.

Mainly there is tons of denominations because people come up with opinions that clash with others on subjects they can only formulate ideas about without any proof or evidence to the 'correct' point of view.

I wouldn't be so quick to put Catholics and 'nutty' together in the same sentence as they are the ones responsible for the core doctrines you believe in as well as giving you the Bible that you read and claim has 'authority'.

And perhaps Mohammad said that, and it's sure a nice thought (though, I hardly see any Muslims living out that verse), but Jesus said that no one can come to the Father but through him. I'm gonna stick with the Son of God on this one...

First, Mohammad did say that according to what we know of his writings. I did make the point earlier that religions today have gotten caught up with a lot of dogma and doctrines one must believe that were not a part of the original message. Also, according to the Bible, Jesus did say he was the only way to the Father but in looking at what the Bible says, this 'way' was meant to be lived not just believed in.

cheers

 

[Pard]

Right, lived. True believers, people who have accepted God's Holy Spirit are living it. They will reach Heaven, the rest will still end up falling short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

The reason I said "perhaps Mohammad said that" is because you said only 8 of the 27 books of the NT were written by the people they are attributed to. The entire Muslim doctrine is written by other people entirely. Mohammad wasn't even alive when they started writing. It was all written based on the memory of one man and critiques from others, including kings.

 

[seekandlisten]

seekandlisten, it's been a while since we chatted. I hope you're doing well.

Hey Mike, it has been a while. I'm doing good and you?

I don't think pointing out false prophets and loving your enemy are mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue, it is out of love (or it should be) that we point out false prophets.

But when false prophets become anyone that doesn't agree with you, I would tend to question on what basis they are dismissed as false prophets.

I know you have a much more inclusive culmination of various religions that collectively represent the greater truth than the biblical Christian does. You do have the background to know that we are bound by scripture to stay the course in our faith and not veer. You will say I'm too narrow minded. I will say Jesus said the Road is narrow. I don't make the "rules". I accept them; humble myself to them.

Our thoughts reveal a lot about ourselves. I have no problem with you believing what you believe. I do disagree when that line of thinking, not just you but anyone of any religion, turns to everyone must believe as they do or they burn in hell. There is many resources out there for those seeking answers. I don't believe Jesus came to start a religion from what I read about him.

My understanding is that Mohammed's revelations came in waves. Some were more militant in nature, and some were more peaceful. It's my understanding that his final revelation was more peaceful, and that although a newer revelation that contradicted an older one of his should have negated the older ones, this didn't happen. His last revelation (which was more peaceful) wasn't adopted as the need to defend the faith placed greater importance on his more militant revelations, and so we have Islam as it is today. I'm sure MA and/or you will correct me, and say I'm wrong. I would be interested to hear a response to this understanding, but it wouldn't change the fact that he did have some revelations that we not nearly as peaceful as the one you cited and that this gospel draws people away from The Gospel.

When it comes down to it I don't agree with Islam any more than I agree with Christianity. There is just as much non peaceful 'revelations' throughout the Bible to point out the one's in the Qur'an as evidence of it being a false gospel. Most of these supposed 'militant' passages in the Qur'an are misinterpreted by Christians trying to prove Islam false. Whether they do this intentionally or due to misunderstanding I'm not entirely sure, but when a Muslim explains them in a non violent manner I tend to believe the one brought up in that religion would be more reliable at knowing the proper context just as those brought up outside Christianity also may have misconceptions about certain passages of the Bible wouldn't you agree?

Seekandlisten, you know from our discussion a while back, I cited a number of verses from the Koran that are violent in nature toward those outside the faith. They are there.

See above point and again there are many verses violent in nature found in the Bible as well.

And again, without getting personal and insulting to the Muslim or the Mormon, we can and should (according to our faith) point out false prophets. The wrath the false prophets deserve shouldn't be cast upon those who are simply placing their faith in the wrong God. They need to be loved and invited into the Christian faith. False prophets?... woe to them.

False prophets doesn't equal different religion though. Jesus was Jewish so do you think he would have called Paul a false prophet? Not when he already stated that 'for whoever is not against us is for us.' The intent of a Christian, Muslim, or Mormon is to get closer to God. Just because some disagree with the 'correct' way to do it doesn't make the other a false prophet.

Paul also stated these things.

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:1-4).

For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. (Romans 14:9-10).

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

Right, lived. True believers, people who have accepted God's Holy Spirit are living it. They will reach Heaven, the rest will still end up falling short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

That's not exactly what Romans 3:23 says. It says ALL have fallen short. Christians are not excluded from this statement.

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

So you see our definitions of "Gospel" are completly different - I, as a Muslim, see the Quran as a more authentic Word of God, and the Islamic hadeeth to be weaker in authority, so therefore the christian version of hadeeth " the Gospels" are also weaker than the original revelation given to Jesus(AS)

You would have a hard time proving that 'God' authored any book that we hold today. While you are free to believe that, that is where I think religions can become dangerous based on what kind of perception and interpretation people want to take when it comes to the literal 'word of God'. Mohammed was illiterate right so one would think that his followers wrote down what he taught. The same way the Bible came into being minus the council that supposedly needed to decide what was really the 'word of God' later on. To argue that one book is better than the other seems ridiculous. What of the sacred books of other religions, do they have any merit? Could Buddha have received a 'revelation' from 'God' when he became 'enlightened' about how to remove worldly desires to end suffering? What about the Hindu's when they became monotheistic in the 6th century BC was that the work of 'God'? How does one answer these questions and discern false teachers from the 'real' thing? The Bible tells of a few ways but that in turn is just interpreted to mean anything that isn't Christianity so is there a way to tell or does one simply pick a religion and hope for the best?

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

I completly agree. Within Islam there is tons of this speculation, we see the current bible as corrupt, but we are not closed to the fact that one day an authentic bible which talks of One god and jesus as a Prophet will be found.

Interesting. Seeing as there is not current Bible that makes the Trinity statement aside from some interpreting certain passages to mean that, and the additions of 1John 5:7 in the KJV to make it seem that way, as a Muslim do you accept much of the Bible, aside from Paul as you pointed out, as true? I would assume you would agree with the 'corruption' of certain texts and the message being meddled with a bit right?

Of course this will be considered a fraud by christians, just another gnostic cult, but this where we all judge these ancient texts based on our current notions. If a gospel is Papyri is found that says Jesus is god, Muslims will just say its a fraud, just another gnostic cult. None of us wnat to admit we are wrong, and faith keeps us from doing so.

I find 'blind' faith seems to trump reason and logic these days. I view 'faith' more along the lines of Alan Watts when he puts it like this.

But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.

In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all.

To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float.

We Muslims have heard this false angel argument before, and it does not hold weight because Paul said it. now if you found evidence that Jesus(AS) said it you might sway some Muslims, but Paul holds the least amount of credibility in the Islamic world.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing some insight into your beliefs on this matter.

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

We Muslims can accept a great deal of the Bible as true - There are also some major parts that we would have to disagree with.

Well that's understandable with the different religions, it's really no different then the numerous denominations that are split on different interpretations of passages. One believes they are more right than the other is usually the case.

Even if you elliminate the trinity, and view the bible in oneness light, we still find fault that Jesus(AS) is a lesser god or just the son of God - we will only be happy if Jesus(AS) is called a Prophet of God, all be it a very special Prophet.

To assign anything more than a prophet to him would be pretty hard to justify without 'faith'. There are Buddhist that consider Jesus the most 'enlightened' man to ever live. I can agree with that, I can also agree with him being a prophet. I can't however agree with him being 'God'. There are many stories of men ascending to become gods in history why would I accept one as true and not the rest? Most of the reasons people use to describe Jesus as God make him into a 'human sacrifice' and I don't believe 'God' is interested in us killing each other to appease him.

However many of the verses where you see Jesus saying "I and my Father are one" are actually quite simmalar to Sufi Saints and their writings. we interpret "I and my father are one" completly differently - not as Jesus is God - but rather Jesus has anihilated all aspects of his sinful carnal self and all that is left is the living example of God. This can get a little tricky and Sufi saints have been put to death in the past for making the same statement, and Muslim authorities interpreted their statement the same way christians interpreted Jesus'.

I could somewhat agree with that I think. One could also point out that when Jesus states that he and his Father are one he makes the same statement in regards to his followers that they will also be one with God, so one would have to reconcile that with what they attribute to Jesus as well right?

I did read an article once presenting a case that 'God's plan' for creation was to reproduce 'God'. I can't say as I agree with it but it was interesting.

I agree with the quote you posted, this related to the Absolute Truth thread I posted in about there being one ultimate source of True knowledge and we as creations of that source will never know which truth is true and which truth is false until we strip ourselves down and submit to his guidance.

I did this at one point, and it led me to Islam, but I can readily admit when I simply beleive because I am told to beleive.

While I agree with you in regards to Absolute Truth, I have to ask why believe something based on that fact that you are told to believe it. From everything I've read 'God' judges on thoughts and motives so why pretend to be something we are not. 'He' knows the difference right?

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

Thanks for sharing a little about why you believe what you believe Mujahid Abdullah. While I disagree with religion, I can see the humility in your posts unlike some religious people and I can respect that.

For me, on my journey to find God - to find my creator - I too was quick to go down the path of seekandlisten - however, I felt, just as personal faith based feeling, that one of the existing religions had to be correct.

On what basis do you come to the conclusion that only one religion can be right? To me the 'one true religion' is about one's relationship with God and the Journey to join with God, this concept is found in many if not most religions. In Hinduism this refers to Yoga(Union with Brahma), in Buddhism it refers to achieving Nirvana(merging with the Infinite Bliss), and in Christianity it refers to becoming one with the Father through Christ(being saved). If the point of religion is to seek God and continue towards union with 'Him' it would have nothing to do with others joining in your journey, as is a part of most religions in gaining followers, as all must make their own journey. Buddha said, 'No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.'

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

Now I know your next question, why did I assume that our Creator did things in the Abrahamic tradition? Why not through Buddhism or Hinduism or Animism or Spiritism - I based this partly on logical reasoning and following my Creators guidance - so the answer is only relevant to me, I cant impart any of this knowledge to you, it is purely experiential.

I can understand your position here. We all have to live our own 'experience' and cannot simply accept another's on the basis of faith. I believe 'truth' stands on it's own. If it is indeed true the evidence will point that out, if it is false the idea will fall under scrutiny. There is no need to defend truth as it stands whether one accepts it or not.

I left Christianity because I felt like I was living a lie. My actions were a charade as to who I was and the questions I had in concerns to the religion. I went through a phase where I believed all religions contained a piece of this puzzle but came to a point of recognizing that the message is simple and right in front of us. I don't need a religion to tell me what is truth and what isn't as we have the capabilities to used logic and reason to determine what is truth and what is myth. I needn't worry about what happens after I die as I am not at that point in my life yet and what can I possibly know about whether I carry on or simply cease to exist other then by putting my faith in someone else's wishful thinking that after this life is a better life where everything I don't like about this one will be gone. If I can't 'live' in this life why should I expect to gain another. In all religions that choice isn't mine anyways, so I deal with the present. I can accept something regardless of what religion it comes from if it stands up to 'testing it' against what we know. I don't accept 'truths' based on faith. My faith lies in knowing that I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing and if I am not I will be shown if I am open to it.

cheers

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote Pard: "Mohammad, the Muslim prophet, was given his false gospel from the angel Gabriel."

-------------

Hi Pard

I have a question.

What ever gave you the idea that the angel Gabriel gave a false gospel ?

 

[jasoncran]

ma, mohammed had a visitation from gabriel correct, you accept that.

then paul met the lord by a vision , see acts 8. you choose the quran over the bible.

seekandlisten, the law of noncontradiction denies what you claim, there has to be one way to the concept of god.

if mohammed is the way, the christ and all of christainity is a lie. the muslims claim the christ didnt return(ressurection) , so if islam is true then we christains have no faith. as the ressurection is central to what we do.

as i tried to tell you with the idea of martial arts. while all seem to work, there has been no real test. but if they were as(and there is if you really look at the practical ones) they do the same thing.

ie the all the grappling arts are very close, the same with the strike arts. and if you look back into the olympics mma was done yrs ago. aka pancrease.

odd since those all seems to be the same thing. strikes and grappling.

that being said the same must be with the way to god, jesus came to tell the way and if he didnt tell all the truth then his disclilples who wrote what he said were lying or he lied. and we already know thatthe nt is fairly the same since the earliest writings.

 

[Mike]

I don't think pointing out false prophets and loving your enemy are mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue, it is out of love (or it should be) that we point out false prophets.

But when false prophets become anyone that doesn't agree with you, I would tend to question on what basis they are dismissed as false prophets.

Here again, you may not agree, but you should have the insight into the biblical Christian faith to know that we are bound by scripture to reject those who proclaim a different gospel than the One True Gospel. There can not be two truths, and we feel we have ample evidence to believe the Bible provides it.

I know you have a much more inclusive culmination of various religions that collectively represent the greater truth than the biblical Christian does. You do have the background to know that we are bound by scripture to stay the course in our faith and not veer. You will say I'm too narrow minded. I will say Jesus said the Road is narrow. I don't make the "rules". I accept them; humble myself to them.

Our thoughts reveal a lot about ourselves. I have no problem with you believing what you believe. I do disagree when that line of thinking, not just you but anyone of any religion, turns to everyone must believe as they do or they burn in hell. There is many resources out there for those seeking answers. I don't believe Jesus came to start a religion from what I read about him.

I don't believe I've EVER said that someone will burn in hell, so you couldn't be referring to me. I believe we are provided with the Way to salvation, and we need to encourage people into it. Whether someone is condemned to hell on judgment day would never be for me to say. God's Grace is inconceivable to me.

My understanding is that Mohammed's revelations came in waves. Some were more militant in nature, and some were more peaceful. It's my understanding that his final revelation was more peaceful, and that although a newer revelation that contradicted an older one of his should have negated the older ones, this didn't happen. His last revelation (which was more peaceful) wasn't adopted as the need to defend the faith placed greater importance on his more militant revelations, and so we have Islam as it is today. I'm sure MA and/or you will correct me, and say I'm wrong. I would be interested to hear a response to this understanding, but it wouldn't change the fact that he did have some revelations that we not nearly as peaceful as the one you cited and that this gospel draws people away from The Gospel.

When it comes down to it I don't agree with Islam any more than I agree with Christianity. There is just as much non peaceful 'revelations' throughout the Bible to point out the one's in the Qur'an as evidence of it being a false gospel.

I wonder how you would support this statement. Certainly there is biblical scripture that detail God's directive to destroy cultures and people who will poison His people with sinful practices. We are never told in the Bible to kill those who are not followers of Christ.

Most of these supposed 'militant' passages in the Qur'an are misinterpreted by Christians trying to prove Islam false. Whether they do this intentionally or due to misunderstanding I'm not entirely sure, but when a Muslim explains them in a non violent manner I tend to believe the one brought up in that religion would be more reliable at knowing the proper context just as those brought up outside Christianity also may have misconceptions about certain passages of the Bible wouldn't you agree?

Certainly there's misinterpretations being made on both sides. I can't deny that someone who studies the Koran knows a whole lot more than me. I have heard many stories from those who have left the faith expose the violent nature of the writings and the religion itself. Here's one from http://bibleprobe.com/islamapostates.htm :

"As a young man, Shoebat was a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization , a terrorist group headed by Yasser Arafat.

“Our mission at first – we were growing up in the West Bank – was: kill as many Jews as you can,†Shoebat said.

Anani belonged to several Islamic terrorist groups in Lebanon. By 14, he had already committed his first murder, and he was just getting started.

“Within four years, I had 223 points, which means 223 kills,†Anani recalled. “And two-thirds of them by daggers. I was trained in what we call body combat.â€

Growing up in the Middle East, Shoebat and Anani were taught to wage jihad against all non-Muslims, especially Jews. For years, they did that.

And that makes their transformation into Christian witnesses for Israel all the more amazing. The two men have devoted their lives to speaking out against radical Islam and standing up for the Jewish state."

So, yes there are some whacko nut-jobs who feel God has given them direction to kill abortionists, but these are very few, and it's not supported by biblical Scripture or Christianity. I believe former Muslims who claim that part of the reason they left the faith was the violence inherent to it.

And again, without getting personal and insulting to the Muslim or the Mormon, we can and should (according to our faith) point out false prophets. The wrath the false prophets deserve shouldn't be cast upon those who are simply placing their faith in the wrong God. They need to be loved and invited into the Christian faith. False prophets?... woe to them. [/b]

Paul also stated these things.

Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:1-4).

For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. (Romans 14:9-10).

I'm not sure how these verses apply to a false prophet or a false gospel.

I didn't intend on this being focused on the Muslim faith. There is One Truth, One Way. I know you don't believe in the absolute Truth of the Bible, so I can't expect that we'd agree here.

 

[jasoncran]

we dont have witness to the creation do we, how then by your thinking are we to believe even moses, and the words and deeds of the patriarchs.oh btw the apostle luke was the witness to pauls story.

he told him, did mohammed have anyone else there with him or did he just tell someone. who believed him.

 

[jasoncran]

the only persons that saw gabriel were john's father, and mary, odd since that too was written way after the death of christ, and you accepted that. oh add daniel. that's only three.

the former, you accept. even though you disclaim pauline doctrine based on a 200 yr time frame of the earliest writing.

so why even believe the story on mary or for the matter of writings , let alone existance of christ.

you err in this cherry picking.

 

[jasoncran]

but mary isnt a prophet, no occassion in the ot is a woman visited by an angel by gabriel
to the writings much of the entire ot must be a deception as well if islam is true

why? the law set ups the need for any man who is hung on a tree to be acursed.

islam to my knowledge denies the crucifixation of the messiah.

who is lying then

paul did miracles read the book of acts before you claim that. he healed and raised the dead! oh yeah paul to you is a liar.

 

[jasoncran]

who wrote the bible books of the nt(gospels)
they werent there when mary nor john saw the angel gabrielle, so how did they know?

the lord himself either told them or the h.s.

so how do you know that the man zachariah was real? or that mary was visited by gabriel?

extra biblical sources?

post those ones, odd so by faith alone is to accept the ot,but not the nt.

in your case.hmm
if you really read the ot and nt. you will find no contradictions only support of the nt

everything jesus did was either done by some story(a prophet) and or stated , or an example in the ot.

if find it odd that if the nt supported the islamic view, one would have a prohecy for that. but where i that one?

the deutero 18 one supports the ac coming on the scene not mohammed.