What is the Anti-Christ in Islam

islamispeace wrote: caringheart wrote: I can also understand why you have difficulty accepting Christianity.  You are not alone in that.  There were many that could not accept the teachings of Yshwe. Indeed, such as the Gentile Christians whom Paul gave special exemptions.

Greetings islamispeace,

No.  I was referring to the early Jews.  I was referring to this:

These are the words of Yshwe as recorded in the book called John:

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


a teaching which correlates with the teaching of Christ, recorded in the other 3 Gospels;

then He broke bread gave it to His disciples and said, take this and eat
    this is my body which is given up for you
then He took the cup, gave it to His disciples and said, take this and drink of it
    this My blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant

when you eat this bread and drink this cup
this is my body which is given up for you
do this in memory of Me

Matthew 26
And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples,
2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


the Jews always had what was called a table of the shewbread in the Temple or Tabernacle...

Showbread (Hebrew: לחם הפנים lechem haPānīm‎, literally: "Bread of the Presence"

I think I remember hearing once that Yshwe said, 'I am that shewbread'.

The study of the shewbread is an interesting study also.


Was Yshwe once again speaking in parables?
or does God dwell with us still, in the bread and in the wine?

caringheart wrote: If you are correct and He did not say the things that are attributed to Him, His teaching is still a good one to follow... for the good and betterment of mankind.. and the building of brotherly love, which leads to the higher Love of the One who created.

islamispeace wrote: In that case, the truth is useless and people should only follow what makes them feel better, regardless of whether it is just a pipe dream or not.  I would rather follow the truth than deceive myself into living my life based on a lie.

What is Truth?
I would say the Truth is apparent by what it produces, but bad things were produced in the name of Christianity once...
just as bad things are being produced in the name of islam now.
So what is Truth?
We must discern, and I believe it is according to Yshwe's Word... 'you know by the fruit'... if the Word produces good fruit then it is guidance from God.

I think you make my point... we must be careful to discern, what is Truth... that is why I say 'let us seek Truth together'. 

asalaam,
CH


Edited by Caringheart - 08 October 2014 at 11:16am

Islamispeace

... I see no reason for any rational person to ever consider Christianity as a viable religion to believe in.

Yes, can you imagine that 80% of the world population thinks the same about Islam ?   

Aaah, forgotten, they're all mislead

Edited by airmano - 08 October 2014 at 8:16am

Caringheart wrote: islamispeace wrote: Caringheart wrote: islamispeace wrote:   Does it ever occur to you that he simply made up the encounter and pretended that there were "witnesses"?  Who were these "witnesses"?  Ananais would surely have denied the account if it had been made up... and Paul would never have been accepted into the fold by Peter and the other Apostles. There were witnesses to testify to the conversion of Paul, or the Apostles would never have accepted him... and Paul would never have given up his status to become one of the persecuted without some miraculous happening. It's really quite simple, but I understand you must not accept him because it is the only way you can fault the Christian religion and hold to your own. asalaam. You did not answer my question.  Who were these "witnesses"? See, the problem is that everything you say is based on the Bible, most of which was written by Paul or his followers.  The rest were written by anonymous people whom we know nothing about.  Who would accept such poor "witnesses"?  Greetings islamispeace, This is where-in we dispute.  'most of the Bible' was not 'written by Paul or his followers'.  The Word of Yshwe was passed on by His followers, and the followers of Peter and the other Apostles, through oral tradition... these are what were later written down, by several authors, all in different places, but all obviously hearing the same Word. These are the witnesses... the Apostle's who tested his story, and accepted Paul.   We can accept these witnesses because they all told the same story, even in many different places, and even recorded in different languages. nothing to do with Paul. If Paul's letters had spoken anything different, these followers would have disputed with him. You must understand that Paul's ministry did not begin until many years after his conversion, and his ministry had always to be approved first by Peter and the other Apostles. asalaam.

There are 27 books in the New Testament.  Thirteen are "epistles" purportedly written by Paul, although some of the letters are considered by scholars to be forgeries.  Two books are attributed to Luke, Paul's companion.  That makes 15 books that are attributed to either Paul or his follower Luke.

The weird thing is that many of the other books are also clear forgeries.  For example, 1 and 2 Peter are both considered to be later forgeries.  In fact, it is obvious that 2 Peter is a definite forgery because it tries to reassure Christians that the second coming has simply been delayed to allow more people to believe, which is clear proof that it was written by someone near the end of the 1st century and maybe even in the early 2nd century.  Since Peter is supposed to have died in the 60s, he could not have been the author.


Edited by islamispeace - 07 October 2014 at 8:35pm

islamispeace wrote: It's really quite simple, but I understand you must accept the false apostle because it is the only way you can fault the Islamic religion and hold to your own.

I just saw this.
Actually, I do not seek to find fault with the islamic religion.  I seek to understand why muslims believe in it and what they believe they follow.  I always had high regard for muslims, until I started looking into their religion, then I became very concerned for them and for what their religion might mean for them and the world.  On the surface all appeared well.  I believe this is why no western nation feared welcoming muslims into their countries, because they knew little of islam and only very little of muslims.  They felt that the western way offered muslims a better way of life which would be appreciated.  Who would ever think they would need to feel threatened by another's concept and worship of God?

Accepting Paul has nothing to do with my view on islam.  In fact I see much of what Paul taught as being very much in line with muslim thinking.
I don't need to fault islam to hold to my belief in Yshwe.  In fact if I were ever to reject Yshwe I would still not accept islam as the correct path.  I feel that I can see very clearly how islam was prophesied.  I am rather inclined towards Buddhism.  I think Yshwe taught much as the Buddha taught.

asalaam and blessings to you,
CH


Edited by Caringheart - 07 October 2014 at 1:59pm