Jesus vs Muhammed: Who Truly Follows Who?

This thread will be a series of topics taken mostly from the informative web site http://www.answering-islam.org/

Many discussions are being had and many fallacies are being put forth regarding "radical Islam" as if it is a usurpation of the "real Islam" by those who commit willful violence in the form of beheadings, rapes, tortures, massacres, pillaging, etc. all in the name of Allah.

Due to the ever increasing acts of terrorism (most recently by members of "ISIS") people try to reconcile what is "true Islam" or what is really "Islamic". Well, how does one come to a true answer?

Begin with the simple definition of “Islamic.” There are good online definitions. Mine is: “that which conforms to the Quran, imitates Muhammad’s life, and obeys Islam’s laws.”

However, more detailed criteria are needed to arrive at a confident yes or no answer for “Is ISIS Islamic?”

We need a standard, an “Islamic measurement standard,” to compare ISIS against, and evaluate if ISIS is aligned with, or contradicts, that standard.

Muhammad should be the “Islamic measurement standard.” Was there ever a greater Muslim than Muhammad? Is there anyone more worthy for Muslims to imitate? Of course not! Muslims are commanded to imitate Muhammad’s lifestyle and obey Muhammad (Quran 3:132 and 33:21). Muhammad embodied Islam and Muhammad practiced what he preached. Muhammad obeyed his Allah faithfully. Additionally his closest friends and devotees, his “Companions,” those men that knew him best, certainly understood his commands and we can also look to their actions to understand what he had commanded.

Wouldn’t it then make sense to use Muhammad, and by this I mean his teachings, actions, and doctrine, as our Islamic measurement standard? Wouldn’t it be logical to correlate ISIS’s actions with these and determine if ISIS conforms?

Muhammad’s teachings, actions, and doctrines are found in the Islamic source materials: the Quran, hadith, and sira. These have been studied and codified as Islamic theology. You could obtain “The Reliance of the Traveller,” in English, if you wish to understand this in some depth.

If you’re familiar with these Islamic source materials these questions are not difficult to answer. Muhammad’s life and teachings are not only well recorded; they are some of the best documented records of any great religious teacher. There are far more details available about Muhammad’s life than there are about Jesus’s, Moses’s, and Buddha’s.

Muhammad: can you think of a more strict, more rigorous, more robust Islamic standard for us to use to measure ISIS against?

source

Now, compare that to what should be the "Christian measurement standard" for those who claim to follow Christianity - the model of Jesus of Nazareth. In my opinion, the majority of so-called "muslims" do NOT conform to the paradigmatic figure of their declared faith.

The same can be said for the so-called Christians; most who profess Christianity do not conform to Jesus' Ways, message, doctrines, actions, teachings, etc. The difference is that true Christians realize this and continue to strive in order to emulate the life of Jesus as best they can. For most of us, it is a lifelong endeavor and journey. However, there are institutionalized "Churches" who call themselves Christian yet in NO WAY emulate the teachings, actions, and doctrine of Jesus. Unfortunately, the majority of "Churches" fall into that category albeit with varying levels of shortcomings and/or direct conflicts.

The Muslims who claim to be "moderate", and the true interpreters of the message of Islam and the Koran, do NOT conform to the teachings, actions, and doctrine of the figure that they claim to be the model of Islam, Muhammed. How can people claim to be the true followers of a certain faith if they deny the teachings, actions, and doctrine of the actual founder, and greatest figure of, said faith? Do moderate muslims renounce Muhammed or do they praise him as the greatest prophet that ever lived?

Compare that to how Christians view the teachings, actions, and doctrine of Jesus. What kind of Christian would renounce Jesus or deny his teachings, actions, and doctrine?

Some suggest that Wahhabism is the standard of ISIS--and even go as far as suggesting Obama and the Bushes to be or to have been aligned with such. Even back as far as 2003 and even 1994 I met people from the USA who had the same kind of ideas of rape, pillaging, sodomy and hatred for the saints and they were self-confessed Muslims.

Re: the saints. Most so-called 'churches' in the USA, I've come to be skeptical about since so many of them seem to be infiltrated with apostasy. Even in one case, someone seeking help --only prayer--had a serious emergency and had been injured after having been attacked went to a congregation meeting place and started explaining to the pastor the pastor only said "Get a job". The person never asked for money, he only asked for prayer for his children. Of course, the pastor put on his "Christian face" when he went back out among the 'sheep'. The real pastors are the ones the cities are trying to drive out and shut down--they are the ones actually doing something to help the poor. The others like the one above, they live in fancy neighborhoods and don't seem to quick to reach out to help others let alone the guy next to them on the pews even if they have surplus of money. The same had given money to the same church for years. But had gotten attacked, robbed. His children were threatened as well. I overheard it, the guy never asked for money--the pastor figuring no one else was around and that the door was mostly shut showed his real face. Had the matter been posed in front of others, they would have touched the organ with some feel good and put on a show.

Nonetheless, those kinds of shady pastors and their flocks will talk about the devil and lion's dens and spiritual warfare and watch you be persecuted and not lift a finger. In contrast, I consider how responsive a secular military or gang is to the slightest danger posed to any of its soldiers or members. If I had to be in a war with most of the so-called Church-goers I've met assigned to my platoon, I would be like surely you are joking. However, there are a few that I would have on my side.

On the other hand there might typically a handful of true saints among any given modern congregation. That is, if one observes and prays one would be led to them, if any.

Related:

• You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia
• The Obamas’ Wahhabist Fundraising Empire: Obama’s First Cousin Spills The Beans (on video)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Some suggest that Wahhabism is the standard of ISIS--and even go as far as suggesting Obama and the Bushes to be or to have been aligned with such. Even back as far as 2003 and even 1994 I met people from the USA who had the same kind of ideas of rape, pillaging, sodomy and hatred for the saints and they were self-confessed Muslims.

Related:

• You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

---

That may be true; one can study the intricacies of specific doctrines of Islam the same as the many denominations of Christianity. The point, however, is basic and fundamental; what is the measurement standard of being a true muslim and what is the measurement standard of being a true christian?

Then, who do we find emulating said measurement standards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

That may be true; one can study the intricacies of specific doctrines of Islam the same as the many denominations of Christianity. The point, however, is basic and fundamental; what is the measurement standard of being a true muslim and what is the measurement standard of being a true christian?

Then, who do we find emulating said measurement standards?

---

Valid questions no doubt. One interesting thing, the guys who were actually from the middle east never showed such an attitude as the ones I met who were from the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Valid questions no doubt. One interesting thing, the guys who were actually from the middle east never showed such an attitude as the ones I met who were from the USA.

---

The eye test reveals that the majority of "big mouths" and "activists" and "attention-getters" are the overwhelming minority of a people. However, that does not answer the question as whether or not "moderate muslims" renounce the teachings, actions, and doctrine of Muhammed, the founder of their faith.

Well it might be that the judge has it right about Islam being a political system rather than a religion. The doctrines of Manicheanism would be designated as heritical Gnostic doctrines. AFAIK, the Koran teaches that Christians and Jews to be "people of the book" are are not to be harmed or enslaved. The Wahhabist clearly have a different take on that. I get the impression that with Islam there many factions and divisions like among Christians. However, Christianity has a solid standard. From my observations of Islam, I get contradictory impressions--even rather nebulous widely-fluctuating ones.

Also, Muslims are supposed to obey the sovereign wherever they are. They are to knowledge prohibited from undermining governments where they go. Again, Wahhabists might have a different view on that.

Related:

• Are Christians really “People of the Book”?
• ''People of the Book'' & The Muslims
• The Irish Village That Was Kidnapped by Islamist Extremists (In 1631)

The "fluctuations" seem to have started with the very founder of the faith...

MUHAMMAD’S KINGDOM & THE CALIPHATE

Muhammad’s ministry lasted for 23 years, from 610 to his death from poisoning in 633. During that time, with the exception of his colossal Satanic Verses error, he proclaimed and practiced Islam faithfully. Those 23 years were divided between two cities: 13 years in Mecca and 10 years in Medina.

Muhammad’s ministry in Mecca was primarily a spiritual one. In several aspects it paralleled Jesus’s ministry. At this time he did not seek to establish a physical kingdom of Allah. (I know that Allah means God and Arab Christians use it. Here I am using Allah to signify Islam’s God). Allah had told Muhammad that he was not to force men to become Muslims:


“And if your Lord had enforced His Will, surely, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Will you then force men to become believers?” Quran 10:99


Muhammad had little success in Mecca. His few followers were weak and oppressed. Any use of force against the Quraysh, the dominant tribe in Mecca, would result in their deaths.

However a few years before he left Mecca he gained new converts in Medina. These followers preached Islam and gained many converts there. Soon Muhammad had a sizeable body of Muslims in Medina. Many were men of war and at the Second Pledge of Aqabah they pledged their swords in Muhammad’s defense.

Throughout his ministry, as Muhammad’s circumstances changed Allah’s revelations changed, and Islam changed. And these fighting men represented a significant change! Unlike his followers in Mecca the Medina Muslims were not weak or oppressed. They were armed and knew how to fight. On cue, shortly before he left Mecca and fled to Medina, Allah gave Muhammad a new revelation, the “Order to Fight.” Ibn Ishaq states:

The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant….


…He gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.1


The “Order to Fight” is described on pages 212 and 213. Different Islamic scholars have differing opinions as to which verses exactly comprise this revelation (most all of the various verses are similar), but here the general text is stated as 22:39-41 and 2:193. Below are two of the four verses


Permission to fight is given to those (i.e. believers against disbelievers), who are fighting them, ... 22:39

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers. 2:193


The order to fight allowed both defensive and offensive fighting, (offensive to end idolatry and spiritual rebellion). Many of the non-violent verses in the Quran were now "abrogated" or canceled.

Muhammad summed up Allah’s directive:


It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.2


I want to emphasize this: If you want to understand the violence in the Islamic would today you must start here. Muhammad’s statement above is a foundation, a “Maxwell’s Equation,” for understanding the role violence plays in Islam.

Muhammad intended to set up a kingdom of Allah. People would have to testify that Muhammad was Allah’s Messenger and they would have to obey various aspects of Islamic law. This was not optional. People had to either submit to Islam or fight the Muslims. Muhammad, and implicitly his followers, were ordered to fight non-Muslims until they either converted or submitted to Islam’s rule (as Christians and Jews had to pay extortion and submit in humility per 9:29).

source

Either Muhammed did what he did or didn't. He either taught that those who follow him and come after him should continue his teachings, actions, and doctrine or he didn't.

Attachment 3229
Well SHOEBAT suggests Muhammed to have not been the founder of Islam, that Islam has its roots in Arianism. There is a line of evidence allegedly going back to Simon Magus. SHOEBAT also suggests Alberto Rivera to have been a con-artist and the Vatican having had zero part in creating Islam (why are their religions so similar?). SHOEBAT's key argument is that it makes zero sense to him that the Vatican a create a system to kill off Christians which Shoebat suggests would be akin to the Vatican being against itself. In any case, it seems kind've strange how he manages to fail to mention Manichaenism and only mentions Arianism.

From what I have observed, there is a popcorn trail that leads back to Mani and thusly to Simon Magus.

Quote:

---

The Roman Catholic Church and Islam


The Roman Catholic Church and Islam have much in common:

1. Both the Roman Catholic Church and Islam believe that they are the one true church/religion.

2. The Roman Catholic Church and the Islam require mandatory fasting.

3. The Roman Catholic Church worships, prays to and gives titles of God to Mary. Islam highly esteems Mary and she is mentioned 34 times in the Qu'ran.

"Even the infidel Muhammed glorifies Mary in his Koran, saying, 'The angels shall say to Maryam, "Allah has chosen thee; he has made thee exempt from all stain'". The Marian (Roman Catholic) Bible

4. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam base their salvation on a complicated system of works and deny salvation by faith alone. There is no assurance of salvation in either religion.

5. Both cults deny the Biblical view of the Atonement. The Roman Catholic Church doctrine dictates that one must go to Purgatory to have his sins purged, Jesus just paved the way. The Muslims believe their works will save them but will not know until Judgment Day. This is because there is no atonement for sin, and God's grace does not exist.

6. The Roman Catholic Church claims visions and apparitions in an effort to add false doctrine. Muhammad claimed to be purified as a child by angels. He claimed to receive revelations from Archangel Jibril or Gabriel.

7. The Roman Catholic Church uses a rosary for their prayers, Islam uses prayer beads. The rosary/prayer beads are concepts taken from paganism.

8. The Pope is the vicar or substitute of Christ for the Roman Catholic Church. (# 882 RCC Catechism) In Islam, Muhammad is called the last and final Messenger of God, the successor to Jesus.

9. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam have their own divorce system. The Roman Catholic Church grants anullments and Islam allows a man to divorce his wife by telling her she is divorced.

10. Islam rejects the Trinity doctrine, the Deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith and teaches that Christians should be killed. However, the Roman Catholic Church accepts them and believes that they are offered salvation because of their faith in Abraham. (# 841 RCC Catechism)

11. Both church organizations believe that leaving their church will result in eternal damnation.

12. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam share a hatred for the Jews.

13. The Roman Catholic Church and the Islam base some of their doctrine on pagan traditions. For The Roman Catholic Church the traditions of a goddess, rosary, pope, relics, purgatory, transubstantiation, praying to dead people, and idol worship are all based on paganism. The Allah of Islam was actually a pagan god, and not even the major deity.

14. The Roman Catholic Church and Islam have added books to support false doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church has added the Apocrypha and Islam the Qu'ran.

15. The Roman Catholic Church priest system (including Popes) has a history of sexual abuse of women and children. Islam has a history of (including Muhammad) sexual abuse of women and children. (source)

---

Related:
Arianism
Islam And Catholicism Similarities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Well SHOEBAT suggests Muhammed to have not been the founder of Islam, that Islam has its roots in Arianism. There is a line of evidence allegedly going back to Simon Magus.

SHOEBAT also suggests Alberto Rivera to have been a con-artist and the Vatican having had zero part in creating Islam (why are their religions so similar?). I figure its kind've strange how he manages to fail to mention Manichaenism.

Related:
Arianism

---

Again, that may be true; in fact, I believe the roots go even farther back - Nimrod and Babylon. The denial of the Logos, the Angel of the LORD, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is at the heart of ALL false faiths. How they progress through history or what the exact and specific doctrines may be is inconsequential. It is the denial of Jesus as God that is at the root of ALL evil teachings and faiths. That would include the faith professed in Rome (The Vatican).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLBereans

Again, that may be true; in fact, I believe the roots go even farther back - Nimrod and Babylon. The denial of the Logos, the Angel of the LORD, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is at the heart of ALL false faiths. How they progress through history or what the exact and specific doctrines may be is inconsequential. It is the denial of Jesus as God that is at the root of ALL evil teachings and faiths. That would include the faith professed in Rome (The Vatican).

---

The denial of God manifesting as Savior is the denial of a personal god capable of creating life or capable or interested in intervening or having any concern for the "physical world"--it is to deny God's potency, life-giving qualities, creativity, intelligence and personality. A similarity with that kind of thinking and communists, is that they are systems for punishing people for merely thinking or believing above a certain level: tools for political control. An "elite" getting its plebes to oppress each other takes a lot of burden off of that elite --especially if they make it a religion. Perhaps modern-day Esau/Edom has tall poppy syndrome?

Quote:

---

...tall poppy syndrome is a pejorative term primarily used in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and other Anglosphere nations to describe a social phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are resented, attacked, cut down, or criticised because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers. This is similar to begrudgery, the resentment or envy of the success of a peer.

---

Quote:

---

5 Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more. 6 He said to them, “Listen to this dream I had: 7 We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it.”

8 His brothers said to him, “Do you intend to reign over us? Will you actually rule us?” And they hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said.

9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

10 When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?”

11 His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.

12 Now his brothers had gone to graze their father’s flocks near Shechem, 13 and Israel said to Joseph, “As you know, your brothers are grazing the flocks near Shechem. Come, I am going to send you to them.”

“Very well,” he replied.

14 So he said to him, “Go and see if all is well with your brothers and with the flocks, and bring word back to me.” Then he sent him off from the Valley of Hebron.

When Joseph arrived at Shechem, 15 a man found him wandering around in the fields and asked him, “What are you looking for?”

16 He replied, “I’m looking for my brothers. Can you tell me where they are grazing their flocks?”

17 “They have moved on from here,” the man answered. “I heard them say, ‘Let’s go to Dothan.’”

So Joseph went after his brothers and found them near Dothan. 18 But they saw him in the distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him.

19 “Here comes that dreamer!” they said to each other. 20 “Come now, let’s kill him and throw him into one of these cisterns and say that a ferocious animal devoured him. Then we’ll see what comes of his dreams.”

21 When Reuben heard this, he tried to rescue him from their hands. “Let’s not take his life,” he said. 22 “Don’t shed any blood. Throw him into this cistern here in the wilderness, but don’t lay a hand on him.” Reuben said this to rescue him from them and take him back to his father.

23 So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe—the ornate robe he was wearing— 24 and they took him and threw him into the cistern. The cistern was empty; there was no water in it.

25 As they sat down to eat their meal, they looked up and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead. Their camels were loaded with spices, balm and myrrh, and they were on their way to take them down to Egypt.

26 Judah said to his brothers, “What will we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? 27 Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood.” His brothers agreed.

28 So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels[b] of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt.

29 When Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that Joseph was not there, he tore his clothes. 30 He went back to his brothers and said, “The boy isn’t there! Where can I turn now?”

31 Then they got Joseph’s robe, slaughtered a goat and dipped the robe in the blood. 32 They took the ornate robe back to their father and said, “We found this. Examine it to see whether it is your son’s robe.”

---

Related:
Tall Poppy Syndrome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

The denial of God manifesting as Savior is the denial of a personal god capable of creating life or capable or interested in intervening or having any concern for the "physical world"--it is to deny God's potency, life-giving qualities, creativity, intelligence and personality. A similarity with that kind of thinking and communists, is that they are systems for punishing people for merely thinking or believing above a certain level: tools for political control.

---

Agreed. However, how many muslims, whether "radical" or "moderate", acknowledge or recognize that the roots of their faith may lie with Arianism or Simon Magus?

The point being, Muhammed is the only figure for either of them to look to as the "Prophet" by which the measurable standard of a true Muslim should be compared. Both will confess this openly and without apology I assume. Therefore, those who best emulate the "prophet Muhammed" are the true believers and followers of Islam.

Who do we see doing that, "moderates" or "radicals"?

I would like to pick up a Koran some time and give it a read. Just to know first hand.

Once I checked out a book about Islamic Law and read the first chapter. The confession is, God is one God and Mohammed is His Prophet. It is funny that even a Christian could take exception to that, considering the Bible has many prophets aside from Jesus.

The SHEMA recited by Jesus as a prefix to the Law, even in the New Covenant confirms monotheism. I suppose that a lot of Christians fail to identify with Ishmael as Abraham's son through Hagar. I feel that Abraham allowing Sarah to drive Hagar away, killing her with dehydration is another big source of guilt on the "Mind" of Abraham and thus effecting the behaviors of the Israelite historically.

But then I actually look for reasons that the Israelites were hard-hearted and stiffnecked.

The impression I got is that Ishmael would not partake in the priestly line and that a separate "world" was made for Ishmael. As for monotheism, I'm not so convinced except it depends on what is meant by monotheism. There is monotheism in the sense of pantheism or in the sense of panentheism or in the sense syncretism or.... Perhaps: "henotheism generally, monotheism internally (internal to the tribe)". The word "god" is said to be in part synonymous with "judge" or "ruler". The judges or rulers in China and the judges or rulers in the USA though they might have the same title, aren't 'gods' of the same people and are different gods. Of course, if A is bound to the laws of XYZ and B is bound to the laws of MNO, then they would each respectfully be judged by the respective rulers/judges of their countries. They could crusade each other's lands all they want about how there is only one 'god'--but they don't have the same 'god' in the sense of rulers/judges, just the same 'titles'.

Attachment 3230

How can there be strange or foreign gods and there be only one god? It is the potential for going off-road that is important to note. The neo-liberal twist on monotheism (i.e. which could be pantheism encrypted) might obscure this potential.

Quote:

---

Panentheism is a form of monistic monotheism which holds that the being of God includes and penetrates all the Universe but unlike pantheism (see below) the universe is not identical with God

---

Did Abraham really go from polytheism to monotheism? Or did he simply eschew or reject worship of idols or external things, fully being aware that one could actually go after or worship strange, foreign or other gods or even worship one's own false or vain imaginations if one chose to?

On the same note, if someone says "I love the prime minister". Who are they talking about? Justin Trudeau? John Key? Malcolm Turnbull? If the aliens say "Take me to your leader" to a crowd at an airport, they will likely be taken to ten or more different places. "Leader" doesn't specify whom. Thusly, a name is important.

On that note, royalty are typically addressed using plural. English speakers use you all the time (it is a plural word). Eloah is singular (more familiar rather than formal) word that can mean god, judge, ruler, angel, etc. It is said that "allah" and "eloah" might be synonymous. But is judge, ruler or angel a name? Is there anywhere in the Bible where the God of Israel says that is name is "God"?

Perhaps this might have some relevance: The Islamic Origins of Talmudic Judaism?

Mohammed's "revelation" was that in the midst of the several "gods" which were formally worshiped by him and his brethren, the god "Allah" was to be exalted and worshiped alone as the only one among the group of gods worthy as being "the god".

This cannot be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the subsequent rejection of Mohammed by the Jews makes clear. He failed to convince his "brothers of the book" and then turned on them as mortal enemies when he found his strong and willing army in Medina. The campaign, and false doctrine of jihad {the forceful conversion to his new faith Islam (submission)} justified the violence and murder which ensued by offensive invasion into the land of the "infidels".

This is Mohammed folks; no one can dispute it and no one can wash away the fact that the founder, and measurable model, of the Islamic faith committed wanton violence AGAINST INNOCENTS in the name of his god and commanded everyone who follows him to do the same. People were forced to either proclaim Allah and Islam as their god and faith or die by the sword (or pay a "tax" and be a slave).

The people that Mohammed attacked were NOT idol-worshipers, human sacrificers, evildoers unto man, forsakers of God the Creator, etc.; they were innocent people who would not SUBMIT to Mohammed, and his newly claimed false god/religion - mostly Jews and Christians.

Therefore, those who some call "radicals" are not radical at all; they are the true adherents to the original faith as founded and practiced by the self-proclaimed prophet Mohammed. NO real muslim denounces Mohammed and his actions, no matter how "moderate" they may be. They do NOT, however, practice the true Islam; they practice a reformed watered down version which claims "jihad" is to be ONLY interpreted as an "internal struggle". They live in fear of death from their own so they do not speak out loudly and renounce the acts of violence committed in the name of their religion and yet they still exalt Mohammed and Allah, the dynamic duo who justify violence and murder against innocent people who refuse to convert and submit.

They DO NOT follow Mohammed faithfully and, therefore, they are NOT true muslims - by the way; that is a good thing.

Christ gives me the notion that God viewed the old testament as mans eye for eye spirit at this rate a genesis and Moses redundancy the Moses pharisaical or idol book worship was a biblical tribal dance waiting for a new Moses after every chosen tribe on Earth Someone who is pharisaical preaches one thing and then does another — not a good trait for politicians or even playground pals. Why use pharisaical when Christ worship nothing wrote less and pointed out why favor with God is a worthy task without pharisaical ring kissing church doctrine went genesis again Christ offers more for less the michael tsarion jordan maxwell zoroaster astrological the night sky pilot cracks me up night sky was Egyptian and the morning Sun Egyptian. Summurian nights and suns not KNIGHTS and SONs Gen. 1:3 indicates God created light to provide day and night until God made the sun on the 4th day to rule the day He had made. In other words, the sun is placed in the firmament to distinguish the seasons...to rule the day that God had made 1:16.

What is God telling us by this....what can we know from this?

First, from Apoc. 21:23, that one day the sun will not be needed as the glory of God will lighten the heavenly city. v. 25 says there won't be nights so time as we know it will have ended.

Second, God did it this way to illustrate to us that the sun did not have priority in the Creation that people tend to give it. Down through the ages, people such as the Egyptians worshipped the sun. God warned the Isrealites in Deut. 4:19, not to worship the sun like the pagan cultures around them did. They were commanded to worship God Who made the sun, and not the sun.

Third, in plain words, the sun did not give birth to the earth as evolutionists postulate in the Big Bang hypothesis. From the BBT, other evolutionists state that the sun's energy on earth gave rise to life reviving pagan beliefs that the sun is given credit for the wonder of God's creation.I believe God wrote the night sky as he knew that book and the night sky are the same u never got killed reading the sky but that book and its temple rabbinical franchised kabal . papal controlled islamic controlled 3 great lies to this day who craves divinity from a book ALEXANDria library burnt the truth or just burnt the first set of lies. Christ is the conspiracy that God created Christs intelligence is beyond any conspirator.

I do not view Moses, or the book(s) he wrote, as "pharisaical" or as "idol worship" (forgive me if I misinterpreted you on this point xparte).

The laws of the OT were specifically a polemic against the ways and manners of the pagans and idolators of the ancient near east. We must view and read the OT through the eyes of the people of the time to realize that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was not a command or endorsement of revenge from God; it was a polemic against undue and unjust recompense for wrongs committed against you. In other words, the rebellious pagans did NOT dispense righteous judgment for wrongs since they did not follow the one true God. There was no limit to retribution and God sought to show how His people are Holy (set-apart) and NOT like the rest of the worldly pagans who are unrighteous and full of evil and vengeance.

God always meets us where we are while still delivering His message in no uncertain terms. He commands His people to be set-apart and, at that time, the appropriate example was to introduce "eye for an eye.." which means do NOT seek out more than what is due.

Since man has a flawed nature, the OT laws were not perfectly kept by anyone. That is why Jesus came and was born into the world; He came to perfectly fulfill the law that NO other man was/is capable of keeping. He incurred the death that was due to us all as a result of our inability to keep His law perfectly (sin). Now, those who believe in Christ live under grace rather than under the law. Our observance and keeping of God's commands is a symbol of our faith and love for Him yet our "works" have NO bearing on our salvation. It is our rank and reward which will be determined by God when our works are judged by Him at His appointed time.

Christ gives me the notion that God viewed the old testament as only mans eye for eye spirit at this rate a forever genesis and does Christ now share Moses redundancy the Moses and a pharisaical interpretation or idol book worship was a biblical tribal dance waiting for a new Moses after every chosen tribe on Earth Someone who is pharisaical preaches one thing and then does another — not a good trait for politicians or even playground pals.moses was himself not pharisaical and who else but a pharisee worship that book so much so Christ was prophesied and true to our nature just like moses had not followed Gods instruction Christ was ignored bye the ones intrusted just as Noah Abraham Moses. Why use pharisaical judgement when Christ worship nothing, wrote less bible and pointed out why favor with God is a worthy task without pharisaical ring kissing church doctrine went genesis again no the folks that took Moses messages in his books and became greater than Moses and some how became those other moses or pharisaical thinking that might surpass moses the new law givers.Christ ask us to be no greater than the truth when we get behind the truth its no book we follow get behind me satan if Christ is telling us to repent moses is telling us why and the book is reference for pharisaical deception Man law is interpretation Gods in a living Christs true salvation bible is the journal not the journey each man has choice a pharisaical path is a all knowing man.LB reading the book without becoming the book . i seen enough burning bushes before i new moses ever wrote about them just think what moses might have written bout Christ. is what each man should know about himself