What is the Anti-Christ in Islam

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.

islamispeace wrote: So, here is another example of how Paul contradicted Jesus (peace be upon him) and spread an objectionable teaching.  According to Revelation 2, Jesus prohibited the eating of food that had been sacrificed to idols.  Addressing the church in Pergamum, it is stated: "Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. 15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth." (2:14-16) Addressing the church in Thyatira, it is stated: "Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols." (2:20) So, it is clear that eating food that had been sacrificed to idols was forbidden and the author of Revelation criticized those Christians who did so.  It seems like a pretty clear-cut ruling.  Yet, Paul felt it necessary to override this ruling!  In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul specificallY allowed his followers to eat such food, but only warned them not to eat around any "weak" Christians who might get the wrong idea: "So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that �An idol is nothing at all in the world� and that �There is no God but one.� 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many �gods� and many �lords�), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol�s temple, won�t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." (1 Corinthians, 8:4-13) So, whereas Jesus plainly stated that eating food sacrificed to idols was an abhorrent sin, Paul allowed it.  Is that possibly why the author of Revelation wrote his scathing letters to those churches?  Was it because of Paul that these churches felt that they were allowed to eat forbidden food? Were they misled into believing that they could eat such food, using Paul's reasoning as justification?  Whatever the case was, Paul clearly contradicted Jesus.  Yet, he claimed to have been sent by him.  Is this not clear evidence that he was among the "false prophets" that Jesus had warned about?

Greetings islamispeace,

I wanted to take time to study these passages which you ask about, and to have guidance of the Holy Spirit in answering.

I see Paul as trying to teach a deeper meaning.  I feel that he elaborates on the message of Christ.
He is increasing the understanding that,
if we understand that there is no God but God, then what meaning or effect does it have on our conscience if we eat food that another believes he has sacrificed to his god, which isn't really a god at all?  It is of no effect on us. 
However we are to guard against causing another to stumble where-in they might think we are eating of food that is sacrificed to another god.
Only those of weaker 'conscience', or understanding, might be led astray in eating food that they think has been sacrificed to a god, or idol.

I take the message in Revelation to be against tolerating those that do not have clear understanding that there is no God but God...
those that may lead others to believe that when they eat of certain foods they are consecrating themselves to other gods.
I believe the message in Revelation to be a warning against allowing these to cause others to stumble...  those who do not have a clear understanding that no food can be offered to another god or have any effect upon us because there is no other God but God.
To be sure that they are teaching that no food can consecrate anyone to a god... that it is not in what we eat that we are consecrated... it is in our hearts that we are consecrated to God...
and we must not allow people to be led astray in thinking eating certain food consecrates them to some other god.
This is what Jezebel was trying to do... to convince people that they should eat of certain foods (foods sacrificed to idols)... to live as she lived... because they would gain something from it.  This is false leading... leading through temptation and falsehood.

I think it is helpful to read Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 8, in the NLT(New Living Translation).  I couldn't decide if I should post it here.  I like to keep replies short and readable, and believe others will go the step further on their own, as I like to do. 
I read also, Revelation 2, in the NLT(New Living Translation)

asalaam.

note:  the only food that is said to consecrate us to God, is the eating of the bread and the wine... the Manna of Christ... body of Christ... bread of life.

note #2:  I personally would steer clear of any food that I think may have been offered as a sacrifice, simply because I do not want to invite any unwanted spirits into my life in any way, shape, or form.  I do not want to partake of anything not of my God.  In a way though this is like saying I do not put my full faith and trust in Yshwe's Word.  I perhaps am afraid to take the chance of having a chink in my armor which the devil might find a way through... much as yourself I would guess. 


Edited by Caringheart - 07 October 2014 at 1:27pm

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

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