Islamic imperative also remains unchanged

Submitted by Debanjan Banerjee (India), Sep 27, 2009 at 13:42

Mr. Tovey,

First of all thanks a lot for your detailed imperative form a Christian viewpoint.

As par as your comment that Paul's meeting with Jesus is in Hebrew Holy Bible. I am sorry to say that this position of yours is incorrect since Paul is not once mentioned in the "Hebrew Holy Bible".

See Islamic perspective on the divinity of Jesus remains the same. Islamic belief is that imposing divinity upon Jesus by corrupting some passages from Injil ("New Testament") is amount to blasphemy and sin against God and Jesus Christ. Quran mentions in very specific terms that anyone who considers Jesus as his personal saviour is in the complete control of Satan and in complete rebellion against God.That person will face eternal damnation.According to Quran , Jesus Christ himself will reject that person on the day of judgment. According to Quran the most heinous crime against God is creating partners with God. Quran mentions that the concept that "Yeshua HaMashiach is the saviour" is an act of rebellion against God. Jesus himself mentions in Quran that he is a servant of God.

There are books in Bible like the Gospel of Barnabas which testifies that the concept of divinity of Jesus was a satan inspired conspiracy against Jesus himself.
Kindly go through the Gospel of Barnabas to understand this.
Please tell whether Gospel of Barnabas is not Christian enough according to you.

Coming to the position of sinlessness of Jesus , Quran mentions very clearly that all Prophets are sinless. Jesus is one of them.So by Quranic perspective Jesus is also sinless.As par as your position that the previous Jewish prophets like Noah,Moses and Abraham are sinners is concerned , by Quranic consideration that position is blasphemous. If biblical passages say that some of these prophets were sinners then those passages are not divine words. They are corruptions created by men influenced by Satan.
Please explain me why such satan-inspired passages are considered as part of the Hebrew holy Bible by evangelical Christians like you.

Many Islamic commentators have said over the centuries that all mentioned passages on Prophet Mohammad in the Hebrew Holy Bible has been removed from the Hebrew holy bible by human intervention who were under satanic influence. That is why it is difficulat to find direct references of Mohammad from the Hebrew Holy Bible.
However I can say that the Biblical concept of "Periclete" is the biblical evidence of the prophethood of Mohammad. Since "Periclete" in Greek means "praiseworthy" which in Arabic means "Ahmed". Now "Ahmed" is one of the names of prophet Mohammad.
So BIBLICAL EVIDENCE of the Prophethood of Mohammed is PRESENT for those WHO WANT TO LEARN THE REAL TRUTH.
I would love to know that

On your position that there were no need for any other messenger after Jesus , Quran mentions very clearly that Jesus was sent to Jews only. Your quote from the new testament that "salvation is of the JEWS." supports my viewpoint that Jesus was sent only to Jews. Quran also states that all Jesus's teachings were replaced with corruption by Jewish and evangelical Christians. So clearly there was a need of a final prophet to the whole of the Humanity and not only to the Jews. That is why Prophet Mohammad was sent to his mission by God.

Logically speaking if Crucifiction of Jesus cleans all the sins of humanity then why the crucifiction did not directly happen after the fall of Man ? Why then God took so long to cleanse the humanity from it's sins ?

On your position that Bible shows slavery as evidnece of the fall of men is incorrect.There are more than one references in Hebrew Holy Bible which states that slavery was supported by God. If Bible shows that salvery is an example of the sinful nature of human then why the same "hebrew holy bible" supports slavery ? (Reference passages are Leviticus). Many Evangelical Christians during the American civil war period have shown that Jesus's own statement in new testament " I came not to break the law of past prophets" as proof of Jesus's support of slavery.
Kindly tell me if the Hebrew Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God then was Jesus a supporter of Slavery ?

As par as your position that Abraham Lincoln was a believing Christian , this cannot be proven historically. There is no historical statement from Abraham Lincoln to prove that he accepted Jesus as his personal saviour. If by your claim Abraham Lincoln can be considered as a believing Christian then I believe Adolph Hitler can be considered as a much more devout Christian believer. Hitler said this in Reichstag in 1933
"We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people." Lincoln never said such a thing.

Kindly tell me do you consider Hitler as a person who has conquered eternal salvation because he accepted Jesus as his personal saviour ?

As par as your position that it is a biblical responsibilty of the Evangelical Christians to support Israel then kindly tell me is it not idoltarous and blasphemous for the Evangelists to worship Israel instead of worshipping the TRUE GOD ?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".