|Re: False Comparison|
- Saturday, December 29 2007, 2:16:30 (CET)|
from 184.108.40.206 - FL-ESR1-72-49-136-132.fuse.net Network - Windows 2000 - Internet Explorer
>>You want the author for the first book "When Jesus became God" or the author of the other book I mentioned? For the first book the authors name is Robert Eisenmann or Richard Rubenstein. I cant exactly remember which one it is but I can go back and recheck I always get the two authors mixed up, but the second author I was talking about I can't even remember his name so I will definetely get his name for you as well, InshaAllah.
>...I'll take any you have. I'm especially interested in the first two centuries of Christianity. I'm beginning to agree with one fellow who said early Christians were Jewish converts...not Assyrians certainly. The truth is that the religion had limited appeal. The "spread" of Christianity was achieved through force and murder of parents whose orphans were "saved" by the Church. You can almost be sure of this because it is precisely what they accuse Muslims of...and you can count on these people ascribing their crimes to others, usually innocent ones too. Hell, their entire religion is based upon heaping their sins onto the back of an innocent victim and murdering HIM...punishing HIM for their crimes...and so they seek to put the crimes they've committed in "spreading" their religion onto the backs of Muslims...trying to mkake Islam guilty of Christianity's crimes.
My brother Pancho, you are absolutely right in your thinking. Our boys like to believe they were the first Christians, The Armenians claim the same, the Ethiopians and the list goes on forever. This claim is a controversy and is open for debate. It all depends on what they mean when they say we were the "first Christians". If they mean that they were the first followers of Jesus and his religion, that is a whole different issue. Or if they imply that they were the first to accept "Christianity" that is totally different from the above and there isn't even any evidence to support this claim. So it all depends on what they mean by "Christian". The first people and only people to have accepted him and followed him were of course his own people. If that means they were the first "Christians", then it would be his own Jews. Of course, for them there was nothing to convert to but it was simply continuing and doing the right thing as they were suppose to. Now these people did not call themselves Christians nor did they last very long either. Most modern Christians would like to teach that they are true Christians and his true followers. They also teach that it was his own people rejected him and that is the most absurd myth ever said. Before and during the time of Jesus(pbuh), the Orthodox Jews were oppressed and persecuted. They had to pay high taxes, they werent allowed to follow their religion based on the Torah while the Hellenized Jews were loving Roman rule. Those who came to follow Jesus were the first group which hated and objected to Roman rule. So there was nothing to convert to since they were doing as told by God and that is to support his prophets and help the messiah.
That particular group were the followers of James(Yacub) the younger brother of Jesus. As for their belief even after Jesus, they became better followers of Mosaic law and they were proud "israelites" or "Jews" as we call them today. The Christians today are those who followed the teaching and the church of Paul and they were at conflict with the followers of James and Jesus(pbuh). It is only that the followers of James didn't make very long because they were all martyred by the Romans and also by those who followed Paul. Paul, on the other hand, is another issue. He was a student of the most Hellenized Jewish high priest who hated the followers of Jesus. Paul was a Roman citizen and even had the Roman soldiers rescue him from getting stoned by the true followers of Jesus(pbuh). That raises an eye brow to many people. Why are roman soldiers who hated these people rescuing one? It is clear that Paul before his allegd conversion and vision use to be a bounty hunter for the Romans and the high priests who loved Hellenism. He use to catch the followers of Jesus and bring them to be killed.
Now, me personally and this is my own opinion, I believe that this person Paul, who was formerly known as "saul", is the same person who is mentioned in the gospel of Thomas(which is not in the New Testament) by the name of "Saulinas" who killed James, the brother of Jesus. He later changed his name to "Paul" which is pretty wise thing to do after just having killed the leader of the Jewish movement which followed Jesus. So, Paul started what is now called Christianity and those Jews who followed him and converted to "Christianity" were the already Hellenized Jews. So the claim that Assyrians were the first Christians is absurd unless they mean those who follow Paul and what became known as "Christianity" and even that claim is absurd since it was the Hellenized Jews who were the first "Christians" and it was the strict Orthodox who followed Jesus and not what Christians like us to believe. The earliest Assyrians to have had converted to Christianity would be impossible prior to the first century after Jesus. In fact, the Greeks and others along the Meditarenean coast would have been "Christian" before our boys were. Either way, they were not the first to convert to Christianity because it was the Jews if anything and they did not convert to anything but continue with the same faith they already had before.
I be more than happy to share more about this subject in the near future, inshaAllah. I find it very interesting and important as well. I been doing lots of work on research about this issue and have begun to read book by both Christians and none Christian historians and also ancient writings/doctrines from around that time period. One can't honestly expect to learn much "truth" from the locak church pastor or the coe priests.
>...you see them doing it in Iraq today; THEY go there to rape women and get pissed at the women for fighting back...it is never their crime which matters to them; it is the resistance of their VICTIMS they punish, as if it was the only "sin" around.
Yes sir, it's ok for them to do all those things but only a tragedy when a Christian dies or suffers in the "Moslem" world or at the hands of a "Moslem" as they call them.
>..they say nothing of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis for the last 17 years but want the world to know Muslims committed a "genocide" 90 years ago! The fact that it wasn't a genocide at all means nothing to them...because they NEED it to be one...to offset the shameful fact that the only real Holocaust and major genocide committed on this planet was committed by Christians.
Just browse around and find out how many women are raped in the "Christian" west every day or in the U.S. alone and the number is shocking. Of course that's not news for them. It's almost like the old saying "if a dog bites a child is not news, but if a child bites a dog it's news" the same goes for Muslims. Wether bad or good, faithful or the kind who don't "give a fuck" like Andreas said, his "Moslem" identity and "Islam" is mentioned and the key to it all. Whenever the Christian does the same even more of them and far worse things, he was either "secular", not a "true Christian" or not doing it "for his religion". The Muslim even if what he did goes against Islam, he was a "Muslim" and it's "Islam. No other people come close to the atrocities committed by them and they try to distract the world from this. It's an old Christian trick they play even in their Muslim/Christian debates and dialogues they play the same tricks and end up hanging themselves with their own rope.
As for the books and the author, I have some I love to reccomend to you. The second book I had mentioned in my previous post is titled "early Christian doctrines" by J.N.D Kelly. There is also "Pagan Christs" and "Paganism in our Christianity". These books are all written by Christians themselves. J.N.D Kelly of course refers to all those groups as "heretics" and that their doctrines were a "heresy" but those are his words and they are irrelevant. It's still important to read this book because he mentions the early history, early Christian sects and doctrines from the first to the fifth centuries after Jesus. If you are further interested, I have began listening to a serious of lectures regarding the historical Jesus I was telling you about. I don't know what your time scedule is or how much free time you have but I could also give you more info on these lectures. There are lots of books and lectures I can recommend to you if you have the time or interested, InshaAllah.
The full topic:|
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)