Both my comments are true... or are they...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Lurker wrote:A nativity scene for Trump supporters, no refugees, no Jews, no Arabs, no Blacks.

Not sure about that... but there were definitely no Muslims back then...

Rather ODD, how you'll start your post with a 'not sure', but then you quickly followed that up with a "but there were definitely no Muslims back then!" statement ...Sweet Jesus     Tommykins, still proving that lack of reading and just sticking your neck out to get it chopped off! 

10. Islam: Islam is the one of the oldest religion of the world that was brought by the Holy Prophet PBUH. It is the monotheistic religion in which the Muslims believe of the oneness of Allah Almighty and the Prophet Hood. Islam is the second major religion of the world with almost 1.5 billion followers called Muslims. The origin of the Islam was started in the 622 AD and it was spread to the whole world within a short period of time.
9. Christianity: standing next on our list is the religion called Christianity that was started in the 300 AD before the advent of Islam. It is also a monotheistic religion that was based on the teaching of the Jesus Christ. Christianity is world’s major religion with around 2.1 billion followers. The Christians believe the Jesus Christ to be the son of Allah Almighty and reserves the Holy book called Bible or New Testament.
8. Taoism: Taoism is the one of the oldest religion that arrives before the arrival of Christianity. It was actually a tradition of Chinese origin that gives the lesson of living in peace and harmony. However Taoism can also be found in the other religions and was started in the 4 to 3rd century BC.
7. Jainism: the other oldest religion of the world is the Jainism or usually called Jain Dharma and it belongs to the Indian religions. The religion teaches to be the non-violent, non- stealing, non- absolute and non- possessive. It is a philosophy of eternity that spread all across the India from the very first day of its origin, 450 BC.
6. Confucianism: it is next on our list because it is the one of the oldest religion that describes the ethical and sociopolitical teachings and is spread in the countries like China, Hong Kong, Macau, Japan, Vietnam and Singapore. The advent of this religion started in the 500 BC.
5. Shinto: it is the ethical religion that is followed in the Japan. The religion focus on the ethical values of the people of the Japan there are several types of Shinto that is practiced all over the Japan and it is the largest religion of Japan. The origin of this religion was recorded in the 8th century and is till famous.
4. Buddhism: it is another oldest and the famous religion of the world that consist of the various traditions and practices that are based on the teachings of the Gautama Buddha. The religion was started in the 6th and 4th BC that awakened the regions of China, Thailand, Japan, Korea and India with the estimated followers of 488 million throughout the world.
3. Zoroastrianism: next on our list is the religion that is among the oldest religions of the world. The religion offers the cosmogonic dualism and monotheism in the regions like Iran and India with the 2.6 million followers. The religion started in the 1000 BCE and the basic beliefs of this religion are the Good thoughts, good words and the good deeds.
2. Judaism: the Judaism is the one of the oldest religion that teaches way of life. The Jewish people follow the religion of Judaism that contains the philosophy of culture and the philosophy of monotheism. Torah is the evidence and the foundational text of the Judaism. The origin of this religion was 2000 BCE.
1. Hinduism: this religion is the oldest religion of since the evolution of human beings on Earth that was originate in 4000 to 2500 BCE. It is the dominant religion that is followed mostly in the regions of South Asia like India and Nepal. The Hinduism revolves around the family of the Gods who gave the teachings of cosmology, pilgrimage of the sacred sites and shared textual resources.
http://www.listawake.com/top-10-oldest-religions-of-the-world/

Saddam hussein and his baath party were leftie socialists!
And under his rule Iraq was relatively stable, secular and peaceful.

Spindleshanks wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

The ancient Egyptians had Gods, not 'A God'....as did the Romans and Greeks.   Humans seek messiahs, they want them, they create them.  They want to be led closer to 'God' in order to be immortal.  It's a basic human need.  If it wasn't, there'd be no religion at all.

Would that be such a bad thing?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You could say that about anything. Islam was founded by Mohammed, and Muslims are his followers.

That being the case, this is a semantic difference.  Since language is the form, and idea is the content, I would gravitate toward Spin's interpretation.

By your reckoning, if Mohammed founded Islam, he thus predated Islam.  If Mohammed predated Islam, he could not have been a Muslim.  It's the same reasoning by which we recognize that Jesus wasn't a Christian.  By the same reasoning, Abraham could not have been a Jew and Paul could not have been a Christian and Joseph Smith could not have been a Mormon.  Fancy that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That being the case, this is a semantic difference.  Since language is the form, and idea is the content, I would gravitate toward Spin's interpretation.

By your reckoning, if Mohammed founded Islam, he thus predated Islam.  If Mohammed predated Islam, he could not have been a Muslim.  It's the same reasoning by which we recognize that Jesus wasn't a Christian.  By the same reasoning, Abraham could not have been a Jew and Paul could not have been a Christian and Joseph Smith could not have been a Mormon.  Fancy that.

Why couldn't Paul have been a Christian?

Mohammed founded Islam, and the followers of Islam are Muslims. Whether you call Mohammed a Muslim or not is not really relevant.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why couldn't Paul have been a Christian?

Mohammed founded Islam, and the followers of Islam are Muslims. Whether you call Mohammed a Muslim or not is not really relevant.

Depends on whether you believe Jesus or Paul founded Christianity.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Muslims are followers of Islam... islam didn't start to exist until 600 years after the birth of Christ.


Jesus performed miracles... healed the sick, even rose 3 people from the dead... his message was freedom/peace/love...

Mohammed did nothing but bring war/death/murder/rape/robbery and brutal dictatorial rule based on fear...

I don't know about Jesus performing miracles.   But I do believe he preached love and not hate.

HT wrote:Also, I think he was the physical embodiment of the spiritual state that we all have but forget about on this planet.   In other words, when he is quoted to have said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

HT wrote:...he meant that you have to have love in your heart and not hate to progress and evolve spiritually.  But that's just my interpretation.

HT wrote:I think the Bible is mostly a mish mash of man made writings, particularly the Old Testament and the Q'uran is even worse.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Depends on whether you believe Jesus or Paul founded Christianity.

No it doesn't. Paul couldn't have been a Christian before Jesus was born - obviously. In the same way, Muslims couldn't have been Muslims before Mohammed told them they should be.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it doesn't. Paul couldn't have been a Christian before Jesus was born - obviously. In the same way, Muslims couldn't have been Muslims before Mohammed told them they should be.

Well in that case, whether you call Paul a Christian or not is irrelevant.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Well in that case, whether you call Paul a Christian or not is irrelevant.

Why? Paul was a convert to Christianity. Before that, he was not a Christian.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why? Paul was a convert to Christianity. Before that, he was not a Christian.

Because there is a school of thought that he was the founder of Christianity, therefore taking what you said "Mohammed founded Islam, and the followers of Islam are Muslims. Whether you call Mohammed a Muslim or not is not really relevant", then surely the same must apply to Paul.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That being the case, this is a semantic difference.  Since language is the form, and idea is the content, I would gravitate toward Spin's interpretation.

By your reckoning, if Mohammed founded Islam, he thus predated Islam.  If Mohammed predated Islam, he could not have been a Muslim.  It's the same reasoning by which we recognize that Jesus wasn't a Christian.  By the same reasoning, Abraham could not have been a Jew and Paul could not have been a Christian and Joseph Smith could not have been a Mormon.  Fancy that.

Why couldn't Paul have been a Christian?

Raggamuffin wrote:Mohammed founded Islam, and the followers of Islam are Muslims. Whether you call Mohammed a Muslim or not is not really relevant.

Boorstin, D. J., The Creators wrote:This, as much as anything else, makes it hard for us in the West to feel at home with Islam. For Islam found the very notion of Creation unappealing. The first, decisive, yet unfamiliar evidence is the Muslim view of Holy Scripture. The Muslims counterpart to Jesus is not Mohammed. Christians believe in the Incarnation, the taking on of human for my Jesus, conceived as the Son of God. But Muslims believe in Inlibration, the embodiment of God in a Book. That book is the Koran. The reverence and mystery that Christians feel toward Jesus the Christ is what Muslims feel toward the book.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why couldn't Paul have been a Christian?

Because Paul was the inventor of Christianity.  It doesn't matter if Christ per-dated Paul, the idea of Christianity did not come into being until Paul invented it.

Raggamuffin wrote:Mohammed founded Islam, and the followers of Islam are Muslims. Whether you call Mohammed a Muslim or not is not really relevant.

If there was no Islam before Mohammed wrote it, how could Mohammed have been a Muslim.  

In fact, this is a serious issue in Islamic doctrine.  For centuries, traditional Muslims have argued that the Quran was Allah's uncreated word, and therefore pre-dated anyone's ability to create it...it was eternal:

Boorstin, D. J., The Creators wrote:This, as much as anything else, makes it hard for us in the West to feel at home with Islam.  For Islam found the very notion of Creation unappealing.  The first, decisive, yet unfamiliar evidence is the Muslim view of Holy Scripture.  The Muslims counterpart to Jesus is not Mohammed.  Christians believe in the Incarnation, the taking on of human for my Jesus, conceived as the Son of God.  But Muslims believe in Inlibration, the embodiment of God in a Book.  That book is the Koran.  The reverence and mystery that Christians feel toward Jesus the Christ is what Muslims feel toward the book.

Islam maintains that its creed has no creation, and has existed forever.  The uncreated Quran means that Islam has no dates.  It's in that sense--the sense of their own belief--that traditional Muslims believe that Islam is eternal, going back forever into time.  Thus, in yet another way, Spindleshanks is correct.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Because there is a school of thought that he was the founder of Christianity, therefore taking what you said "Mohammed founded Islam, and the followers of Islam are Muslims. Whether you call Mohammed a Muslim or not is not really relevant", then surely the same must apply to Paul.

Not really. Paul was a convert to Christianity, and he helped to spread it. It already existed.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not really. Paul was a convert to Christianity, and he helped to spread it. It already existed.

Did it because this claims otherwise.

These earliest followers of Jesus were devout Jews who continued to offer sacrifice at the Temple and to observe the whole Jewish Law. Essentially, they were a small sect within Judaism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/paul_1.shtml

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Because there is a school of thought that he was the founder of Christianity, therefore taking what you said "Mohammed founded Islam, and the followers of Islam are Muslims. Whether you call Mohammed a Muslim or not is not really relevant", then surely the same must apply to Paul.

Not really. Paul was a convert to Christianity, and he helped to spread it. It already existed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Did it because this claims otherwise.

These earliest followers of Jesus were devout Jews who continued to offer sacrifice at the Temple and to observe the whole Jewish Law. Essentially, they were a small sect within Judaism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/paul_1.shtml

The issue is made more complex because of Jewish traditions, but the earliest followers of Jesus included those who witnessed the resurrection and who believed he was the Son of God. That is the important point. Paul persecuted the early Christians until his conversion.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The issue is made more complex because of Jewish traditions, but the earliest followers of Jesus included those who witnessed the resurrection and who believed he was the Son of God. That is the important point. Paul persecuted the early Christians until his conversion.

Yes I know, but the issue is whether Christianity was a distinct religion of it's own before Paul converted or whether his conversion and subsequent spreading of the faith is what led to the advent of Christianity.

This seems to suggest the latter and that although people did believe Jesus was the Messiah, they were actually still followers of the Jewish faith rather than the Christian faith.

I guess the questions really are, when did the term Christian become the name for followers of Jesus?  When did it become a religion distinct from Judaism before.  Was that before or after Pauls conversion to Christianity.

If it was after then it can be argued that Paul was indeed the founder of Christianity.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that Paul invented Christianity though. I didn't say Mohammed was a Muslim, I said he founded Islam.

Boorstein, D. J. wrote:This, as much as anything else, makes it hard for us in the West to feel at home with Islam. For Islam found the very notion of Creation unappealing. The first, decisive, yet unfamiliar evidence is the Muslim view of Holy Scripture. The Muslims counterpart to Jesus is not Mohammed. Christians believe in the Incarnation, the taking on of human for my Jesus, conceived as the Son of God. But Muslims believe in Inlibration, the embodiment of God in a Book. That book is the Koran. The reverence and mystery that Christians feel toward Jesus the Christ is what Muslims feel toward the book.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that Paul invented Christianity though. I didn't say Mohammed was a Muslim, I said he founded Islam.

You’re not following the plot:

Boorstein, D. J. wrote:This, as much as anything else, makes it hard for us in the West to feel at home with Islam.  For Islam found the very notion of Creation unappealing.  The first, decisive, yet unfamiliar evidence is the Muslim view of Holy Scripture.  The Muslims counterpart to Jesus is not Mohammed.  Christians believe in the Incarnation, the taking on of human for my Jesus, conceived as the Son of God.  But Muslims believe in Inlibration, the embodiment of God in a Book.  That book is the Koran.  The reverence and mystery that Christians feel toward Jesus the Christ is what Muslims feel toward the book.

You can’t “found” what was eternal.

Spindleshanks wrote:I guess the questions really are, when did the term Christian become the name for followers of Jesus? When did it become a religion distinct from Judaism. Was that before or after Pauls conversion to Christianity.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You’re not following the plot:



You can’t “found” what was eternal.

It's you who's not following anything I'm saying. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't give you the right to accuse me of not following the plot.

Where did the content of the Koran come from?

Raggamuffin wrote:I think that some people are confusing Christianity with the Christian Church. Christianity is a belief, not an organisation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Yes I know, but the issue is whether Christianity was a distinct religion of it's own before Paul converted or whether his conversion and subsequent spreading of the faith is what led to the advent of Christianity.

This seems to suggest the latter and that although people did believe Jesus was the Messiah, they were actually still followers of the Jewish faith rather than the Christian faith.

I guess the questions really are, when did the term Christian become the name for followers of Jesus?  When did it become a religion distinct from Judaism before.  Was that before or after Pauls conversion to Christianity.

If it was after then it can be argued that Paul was indeed the founder of Christianity.

It can also be argued that he was a convert.

This isn't really about what a religion is called anyway. You say that Islam existed before Mohammed, and that it was just called something else, yes? I say that it did not because Mohammed is so central to Islam and it was founded by him.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's you who's not following anything I'm saying. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't give you the right to accuse me of not following the plot.

Where did the content of the Koran come from?

You sound like a Catholic...are you?  Here is where history intersects doctrine, and Catholics are intolerant of anyone who contradicts their manipulations of the story.  They get quite mad.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It can also be argued that he was a convert.

This isn't really about what a religion is called anyway. You say that Islam existed before Mohammed, and that it was just called something else, yes? I say that it did not because Mohammed is so central to Islam and it was founded by him.

Hang about, if you are now claiming this isn't about what a religion is called then why are you questioning my belief that it could have been called something else prior to being named Islam?

Tommy Monk wrote:
This is starting to get a bit 'leftie quantum thinking' here...


If you are arguing that Christians didn't exist until after Jesus and until after the foundation of christianity...

Then you cannot honestly argue anything other than Muslims didnt exist until after mohammed and until after the foundation of Islam!!!



It is completely insane to try to argue that there were Muslims at the place of birth of Jesus... which was over 600 years before the very existence of the man responsible for the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, for you to actually be classed as 'a Muslim'... while also arguing the certainty of there being no Christians until well after the existence of Jesus and until after the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, to be classed as 'a christian'...!!!


What the fuk is wrong with some of you people!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:
This is starting to get a bit 'leftie quantum thinking' here...

If you are arguing that Christians didn't exist until after Jesus and until after the foundation of christianity...

Tommy Monk wrote:Then you cannot honestly argue anything other than Muslims didnt exist until after mohammed and until after the foundation of Islam!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:It is completely insane to try to argue that there were Muslims at the place of birth of Jesus... which was over 600 years before the very existence of the man responsible for the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, for you to actually be classed as 'a Muslim'... while also arguing the certainty of there being no Christians until well after the existence of Jesus and until after the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, to be classed as 'a christian'...!!!

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
This is starting to get a bit 'leftie quantum thinking' here...

If you are arguing that Christians didn't exist until after Jesus and until after the foundation of christianity...

Christianity is not synonymous with Jesus.  Years later Paul used events of Jesus' life to create a story, which later became a religion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
This is starting to get a bit 'leftie quantum thinking' here...


If you are arguing that Christians didn't exist until after Jesus and until after the foundation of christianity...

Then you cannot honestly argue anything other than Muslims didnt exist until after mohammed and until after the foundation of Islam!!!



It is completely insane to try to argue that there were Muslims at the place of birth of Jesus... which was over 600 years before the very existence of the man responsible for the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, for you to actually be classed as 'a Muslim'... while also arguing the certainty of there being no Christians until well after the existence of Jesus and until after the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, to be classed as 'a christian'...!!!


What the fuk is wrong with some of you people!!!???

I think that Spindle started off by saying that Christianity could have existed before Jesus actually. I think she changed her mind later though.

Gospel of John wrote:For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, but he be dead, yet shall he live.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Christianity is not synonymous with Jesus.  Years later Paul used events of Jesus' life to create a story, which later became a religion.

Not true. Paul didn't write the Gospels.

The Epistles of Paul wrote:[Paul's] writings occupy nearly one-fourth of the whole book [of the New Testiment]. They are not printed in the order in which they were written. They all circulated originally, as did all the books of the New Testament, as separate documents; and when they were collected into larger volumes, they were placed without regard to chronological order.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
This is starting to get a bit 'leftie quantum thinking' here...


If you are arguing that Christians didn't exist until after Jesus and until after the foundation of christianity...

Then you cannot honestly argue anything other than Muslims didnt exist until after mohammed and until after the foundation of Islam!!!



It is completely insane to try to argue that there were Muslims at the place of birth of Jesus... which was over 600 years before the very existence of the man responsible for the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, for you to actually be classed as 'a Muslim'... while also arguing the certainty of there being no Christians until well after the existence of Jesus and until after the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, to be classed as 'a christian'...!!!


What the fuk is wrong with some of you people!!!???

I think that Spindle started off by saying that Christianity could have existed before Jesus actually. I think she changed her mind later though.

Nazirene wrote:In order to understand the origin of the name Christian, one must begin to perceive the manner in which the sacred writings of all people are written. The fact that the scriptures have more than one meaning is well documented in the Bible itself. As has been fully revealed in the preceding chapters, the inner, spiritual meaning of the Bible, can only be observed by those disciples who the Lord opens the mind -- which opening enables the disciple to perceive the veiled meaning: "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45 KJV)

Original Quill wrote:It is polemical.  It is playing with the word "Christianity" in the same way as others have...playing with the ambiguities:

Nazirene wrote:In order to understand the origin of the name Christian, one must begin to perceive the manner in which the sacred writings of all people are written. The fact that the scriptures have more than one meaning is well documented in the Bible itself. As has been fully revealed in the preceding chapters, the inner, spiritual meaning of the Bible, can only be observed by those disciples who the Lord opens the mind -- which opening enables the disciple to perceive the veiled meaning: "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45 KJV)

Ya puts in ya quarter before you gets ta understand.  

4EVER2 wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Stay on topic please...     Odd, how you'll try to sound so polite when it suits you; yet you've been one of the worst for derailing numerous topics since my arrival upon this community!

How can there have been Muslims around over 600 years before the invention of the Islamic faith?

  So where do those 'HUMANS' appear in our history books, Tommykins?  Do they just suddenly drop into the specific chapters of the BIBLE and until that point in time never exist ??? just float around the world as dust to the wind and when the prophet's decided to put quill to ink then they suddenly became a LIFE FORM?

Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?

Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/

I keep poking you to READ more, to stop riding the backs of people that you want to hitch your opinions to and find out information on your own!  Good Grief, Tommykins ...there's a wide world of interesting STUFF you could be finding out about and yet you just can't be 'Free Willed' into doing any reading on your own!    
So many adult topics and ideas that we could discuss ...but you sadly have such a locked mind. 

Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?

Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
**edited
In fact, research at other sites in the region has shown that within 1,000 years of Gobekli Tepe's construction, settlers had corralled sheep, cattle and pigs. And, at a prehistoric village just 20 miles away, geneticists found evidence of the world's oldest domesticated strains of wheat; radiocarbon dating indicates agriculture developed there around 10,500 years ago, or just five centuries after Gobekli Tepe's construction.
****edited

To Schmidt and others, these new findings suggest a novel theory of civilization. Scholars have long believed that only after people learned to farm and live in settled communities did they have the time, organization and resources to construct temples and support complicated social structures. But Schmidt argues it was the other way around: the extensive, coordinated effort to build the monoliths literally laid the groundwork for the development of complex societies.
The immensity of the undertaking at Gobekli Tepe reinforces that view. Schmidt says the monuments could not have been built by ragged bands of hunter-gatherers. To carve, erect and bury rings of seven-ton stone pillars would have required hundreds of workers, all needing to be fed and housed. Hence the eventual emergence of settled communities in the area around 10,000 years ago. "This shows sociocultural changes come first, agriculture comes later," says Stanford University archaeologist Ian Hodder, who excavated Catalhoyuk, a prehistoric settlement 300 miles from Gobekli Tepe. "You can make a good case this area is the real origin of complex Neolithic societies."
Lots more to this entire article at > 
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/#mVB9GlpewBHb8cTP.99

Raggamuffin wrote:Is the claim now that Muslims are a race?

Well, so much for HOPE & LEARNING ...they didn't call them a RACE, more like a tribe.  Like the lost TRIBE'S of ISRAEL    

Your argumentative position on any given topic is ...well pretty immature; but predictive!  

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is the claim now that Muslims are a race?

   Well, so much for HOPE & LEARNING ...they didn't call them a RACE, more like a tribe.  Like the lost TRIBE'S of ISRAEL    
But had you wanted to expand your mind and read the links and articles, there'd be NO NEED for me to answer that question, now would there???

Your argumentative position on any given topic is ...well pretty immature; but predictive!  

Original Quill wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:I guess the questions really are, when did the term Christian become the name for followers of Jesus?  When did it become a religion distinct from Judaism.  Was that before or after Pauls conversion to Christianity.

Yes, that is the crux of the matter.  To make it even a finer point, there were followers, and FOLLOWERS.  

Originally, among the followers were the Cathars and the Paulines, or Catholics.  What transformed followers into FOLLOWERS--the religion, as distinct from a group of devotees--was the Emperor Constantine.  Even he didn't care about the religion, but he wanted to use it to consolidate Rome.  As a by-product, he made a following into a religion.

The Church, under the Pope--then, merely the Bishop of Rome--became the tail that wags the dog.  As the Roman Empire diminished, the fortunes of the Pope rose, and eventually he was naming the emperor.

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is the claim now that Muslims are a race?

   Well, so much for HOPE & LEARNING ...they didn't call them a RACE, more like a tribe.  Like the lost TRIBE'S of ISRAEL    
But had you wanted to expand your mind and read the links and articles, there'd be NO NEED for me to answer that question, now would there???

Your argumentative position on any given topic is ...well pretty immature; but predictive!  

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not true. Paul didn't write the Gospels.

No, Paul had nothing to do with the Gospels.  Paul wrote in letters, in which he started the religion known as Christianity.  Paul wrote thirteen letters which are included in the New Testament.

The Epistles of Paul wrote:[Paul's] writings occupy nearly one-fourth of the whole book [of the New Testiment]. They are not printed in the order in which they were written. They all circulated originally, as did all the books of the New Testament, as separate documents; and when they were collected into larger volumes, they were placed without regard to chronological order.

The Gospels were written some 1 to 3 centuries after the death of Jesus, the earliest being Mark the Evangelist, founder of the Church of Alexandria.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
This is starting to get a bit 'leftie quantum thinking' here...

If you are arguing that Christians didn't exist until after Jesus and until after the foundation of christianity...

Christianity is not synonymous with Jesus.  Years later Paul used events of Jesus' life to create a story, which later became a religion.

Tommy Monk wrote:Then you cannot honestly argue anything other than Muslims didnt exist until after mohammed and until after the foundation of Islam!!!

Two different standards...ergo, they cannot be used to evaluate the other.  The idea of creation for each is different.  With Christianity, the story begins with a life.  With Islam, the story begins with a book.  We know when the life of Jesus was, but we don't know when or where the book was written.  And to compound the matter, Muslims insist that the book is eternal.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is completely insane to try to argue that there were Muslims at the place of birth of Jesus... which was over 600 years before the very existence of the man responsible for the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, for you to actually be classed as 'a Muslim'... while also arguing the certainty of there being no Christians until well after the existence of Jesus and until after the creation of the religion that you would have to subscribe to, to be classed as 'a christian'...!!!

The highlighted portion is your error in thinking.  Mohammad did not create the religion.  Islamist scholars claim Islam was not created, but eternal.

Tommy Monk wrote:So... Muslims are just the followers of the guide book known as the koran...!?


Which was compiled more than 600 years AFTER the birth of Jesus...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not true. Paul didn't write the Gospels.

No, Paul had nothing to do with the Gospels.  Paul wrote in letters, in which he started the religion known as Christianity.  Paul wrote thirteen letters which are included in the New Testament.

The Epistles of Paul wrote:[Paul's] writings occupy nearly one-fourth of the whole book [of the New Testiment]. They are not printed in the order in which they were written. They all circulated originally, as did all the books of the New Testament, as separate documents; and when they were collected into larger volumes, they were placed without regard to chronological order.

The Gospels were written some 1 to 3 centuries after the death of Jesus, the earliest being Mark the Evangelist, founder of the Church of Alexandria.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:So... Muslims are just the followers of the guide book known as the koran...!?


Which was compiled more than 600 years AFTER the birth of Jesus...

Yes.