Ti si govoro o krscanskoj teokratiji da se moze uspostaviti na osnovu Biblije.

Pa kazem ti izmjenjen je u smislu da su Isusu pridodata bozanska svojstva. Ali u smislu Isusovog ucenja, ponasanja, sta je dobro a sta lose, to je prihvatljivo u Islamu

Ma ja smiješan si, ponovi dolazak Isusa je kao da se igra sa kerubinima.

Nije to baš tako u krscanskoj eshatologiji, ali dobar humor.
Opet je po krscanstvu Bog jedno i ide u Ime Oca Sina i Duha Svetoga, Sin je neodvojiv od Boga i njegova dva ostala "lica".

Ne znamo sta je izmijenjeno sta nije, uglavnom tema nije ni Isa a.s nego Isus tj bozanstvo kod krscana.

Haj kad trolamo evo vam turbe Jahje - Ivana Krstitelja

To je islamska laž bez jednoga dokaza.
Pokaži jednu skupinu Kršćana, i pismene dokaze, koja se držala tog kuranskog inđila od prvog do sedmog stoljeća?
Nema je

Od prvog stolječa do danas je evanđelje isto.
Dokazano kroz tekstove iz svih stoljeća ( crkveni oci, itd.)

Apokrifno Allahovo evanđelje.

Budalaštine.

Amen

Hoće, to joj nakana kad moli.

Djesi burence

Zidovi potvrdjuju da je Bog jedan cak ne priznaju ni Isusa za Mesiju , niti za sina, nego kazu u vjeri su blizi muslimanima nego krscanima, samo krscani od tri vjerr imaju trojstvo.

Iako opet Kuran govori bas sto muslimani i jevreji vjeruju u Jesnog Boga bez trojstva, jevreji ne priznaju Muhammeda a.s , dok muslimani i krscani priznaju Isusa kao Mesiju
Korkut:
Ti ćeš, sigurno, naći da su vjernicima najljući neprijatelji jevreji i mnogobošci; i svakako ćeš naći da su vjernicima najbliži prijatelji oni koji govore: "Mi smo kršćani", zato što među njima ima svećenika i monaha i što se oni ne ohole"


Ako je u Kur'anu tako onda je tako.
I najliberalniji odnos prema covjeku imaju krscani ali oni su zrtvovali Boga za to.

Islamska tvrdnja da je Evandjele iskrivljeno, da Kur'an ispravno govori o Isau (Isusu), kao i shodno tome problematizovanje Trojstva i sl. svodi se na jedno:

Da ovo ne bude nacin postovanja Zakona:


Vec da ovo bude nacin postovanja Zakona:


Dakle da se ljudi umesto neubijanju uce ubijanju, da se navode na razvrat umesto na smernost, da se navode na otimanje umesto na davanje, da se navode na laganje umesto na govorenje istine.
Muhamed je milijarde odveo u greh, jer je obesmislio postovanje Zakona kojeg se muslimani navodno pridrzavaju.
Muslimane bi trebalo spasavati od tog greha, ali to je bilo nemoguce jer kod njiih nema slobode govora, i za rec se gubi glava ( a kao postuju zapovest "Ne ubij")!
Danas medjutim u vreme razvijenih informativnih tehnologija, nesto od Istine Evandjelja dopre i do njih, pa je moguce i da odbace svoje pogresno ucenje.

Da, ako zamemaris određene stihove u Bibliji onda je to tako. Zašto zanemarujete stihove gdje se poziva na ubijanje nevjernika, robovlasnistvo i sl. a pravite se mirotvorci?

"Violence in Early Christianity
If the relationship between religion and violence is complex, the specific connection between Christianity and acts of violence merits particular attention. How can it be that people following a religion founded on the teaching of one who declared the peacemakers to be blessed should be complicit in, or indeed the perpetrators of horrific acts of violence over the last two millennia? Christians have engaged in slaughter in the mission fields, inquisitions and executions, Crusades against Muslims, and, of course, engaged in anti-Jewish oppression that ultimately led to the horrors of Auschwitz.

Many theologians claim that peace-making and non-violence are normative qualities of Christianity. A commonly expressed view is that while Christianity was indebted to Judaism for much of its theology and practice, one area of marked contrast was in attitudes to violence. While Jews had a tradition of Holy War in conquering, maintaining, and regaining the Promised Land, Christians followed a crucified Messiah. Therefore, in the first century, Jews could draw on the recent example of the Maccabees that would lead to the unsuccessful revolts against Rome. With no commitment to temporal space, Christian identity was forged through modelling Jesus’ embrace of suffering and death. In general terms, these contrasting ways of creating social identity led to different interpretations of persecution, suffering, and martyrdom.

Yet by the end of the fourth century, which had begun with the so-called “Great Persecution” of Diocletian, Christian mobs were attacking synagogues with impunity. As the empire became increasingly Christianized in the fifth century, all non-Christians began to see their freedoms impinged as, to quote Hans Küng’s biting critique, “the Church no longer remembered that it had once been persecuted.”

My project, Divine Violence in the New Testament and Early Christianity, which I began at CTI, aims to offer some explanation why the Church transitioned so easily from persecuted to persecutor. Accounts of violence/non-violence in early Christianity tend to make two erroneous claims. First, there is a sharp contrast between violence in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. This is a move that was made as early as Marcion’s notion that the God of Jesus Christ was not the same deity as in the Hebrew Bible. This view was partly motivated by what Marcion saw as Yahweh’s problematic violence throughout the Old Testament. Second, some argue that post-Constantinian Christianity, when the Empire began to be Christianized, caused a radical break from the early Church’s commitment to non-violence. Christians could now wield the power of the State in order to promote the gospel and punish heresy. For some radical Christian groups in the Anabaptist tradition, the failure of the church to disentangle itself from the State has been the cause of violence in the name of Christ up to the present day.

I challenge the assumption that there are sharp differences in the level of violence between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and from the pre- to post-Constantine churches. My thesis is admittedly controversial: early Christianity never was characterized by a principled commitment to non-violence, and so the two radical shifts identified never really took place. Some scholars have attempted to “level out” the violence between the Old and New Testaments by playing down the violence of the Hebrew Bible, noting that mainstream scholarship now regards the conquest narratives of Canaan to be unhistorical, representing the fantasies of an exiled people. While this is almost certainly the case, it is this kind of “fantasy violence” that is found in the New Testament. While the Hebrew Bible’s violence usually manifests itself in war narratives, in which Israel is led by God against its enemies, early Christian texts transfer this warfare to an eschatological or apocalyptic level, most notably in the Book of Revelation. Readers of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are invited to imagine those they consider their enemies being subjected to violent death, or in Revelation’s case, violent torture prior to death, with the saints either watching on or participating.

The most gruesome violence can be legitimized if it is divine violence, or human violence on God’s command or behalf. Even early Christian martyrdom is usually portrayed in agonistic terms, often with a threat of violent retribution for the persecutors. In the New Testament, such retributive violence is not restricted to the Apocalypse; it is found in the parables of Jesus, such as the wedding feast (Matt. 22.1–14) and the tenants (Matt. 21.33–46). Elsewhere in the New Testament, characters are subject to divine “execution,” such as Judas (Acts 1.18), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5.1–11), and Herod Agrippa (Acts 12.20–24), and possibly those who ate the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner who Paul notes have died (1 Cor. 11.30). Later, Tertullian, who is often invoked in arguments about Christian non-violence, urges believers not to attend the games because of their violence and cruelty, yet imagines Christians to be spectators in the eschatological arena when God executes judgement on non-believers (On the Games).

While early Christians certainly did not take up arms against the Romans, in their theological worldview they fantasized about the violence that would be inflicted on those outside the church. In early Christianity, violence was by no means eschewed; violence was eschatologically transferred, and only temporarily and temporally displaced. When the opportunity eventually presented itself in the fourth century onwards, it is hardly surprising that Christians used their newfound power to act, wielding divine violence and judgement against those they considered to be enemies of God.

The mistaken presupposition that the New Testament and early Christianity were by conviction “pacifist” acts as a theological inhibitor which makes it easy to dismiss the all too frequent occurrences of Christian violence as aberrations from a non-violent norm. However, by understanding and confronting the important role violence has played in early and subsequent Christian worldviews, we are better placed to learn the lessons of history and overcome the latent dark side of faith."

Trola offtopicuje prebacuje temu na Islam.
Poenta teme je ne vjeruj Danajcima kad poklone donose, a to je i jedan forumas potvrdio kazivajuci da Isus nije bas toliko miroljubiv.

Najbolji lijek jednoj od Abrahamovih religija je druga Abrahamova religija, takve su dizajnirane i kreirane da brišu ostale kao gumicom.
Jer pravi put se razlikuje od krivog, "Carstvo Nebesko je veće od carstva zemaljskog", svi ljudi će služiti Jahvu i Izraelćane.
Ne može Bog jedan ne biti superioran nad ostalim "bogovima".

Kad dođu u dodir jedna sa drugom, onda počnu ratovi.
Vidjeti historiju : Judaizma i Krscanstva od početka Kršćanstva pa do danas.
Judaizma i Islama
Krscanstva i Islama


Onaj drugi je prvorođenac Sotone, on je kjafir (neko ko prekriva istinu ) i on je gentiles (stoka nejevrej).


Da vidis sta krscani misle o muslimanima, vidi samo sta su mislili o jevrejima (vjera u jedngo Boga bez trojstva) i složiti ćeš punu sliku.
5. Jewish Links with the Devil

John 8:44: "You are of the [= your?] father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth, because truth is not in him. Whenever he speaks the lie, he speaks of his own [voice, nature, native language], because he is a liar and the father of it."

"1. Ivanova 2,22 Tko je lažac, ako nije onaj koji niječe da Isus jest *Krist? Eto antikrista, onog koji niječe Oca i Sina.
1. Ivanova 2,23 Tko niječe Sina nema ni Oca; tko ispovijeda Sina ima i Oca, također.


"In several places John's gospel also associates "the Jews" with darkness and with the devil. In John 8:37-39;[38] 44–47,[39] Jesus says, speaking to a group of Pharisees:

I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God.

Although it has been claimed that the modern consensus is that the term Ioudaioi (Jews) in John refers exclusively to religious authorities,[40] the basis for this claim has been challenged and John's use of the term Jews remains a complex and debated area of biblical scholarship.[41][42] New Testament scholar J.G. Dunn writes:

The Fourth Evangelist is still operating within a context of intra-Jewish factional dispute, although the boundaries and definitions themselves are part of that dispute. It is clear beyond doubt that once the Fourth Gospel is removed from that context, and the constraints of that context, it was all too easily read as an anti-Jewish polemic and became a tool of anti-semitism. But it is highly questionable whether the Fourth Evangelist himself can fairly be indicted for either anti-Judaism or anti-semitism.[43]

Odlično se poklapa sa evanđeljem po Ivanu i onom evanđelju Filipljanima.


Napomena : Da neko ne bi prebacivao sto muslimani citiraju Bibliju kad misle i vjeruju da je promijenjena, ovde se citira kršćanski mindset i šta su kršćani mislili o nekrsti.

Najteži grijeh u Islamu je grijeh protiv Boga, i taj Bog grijeh ne oprašta ako se ne pokaješ, za ostale grijehe protiv čovjeka (muslimana - nemuslimana ) životinje drveta
itd, Bog se na Sudnjem danu ne miješa ostavlja ljudima da riješe to. Svako će na Sudnjem Danu imati ono što zaslužuje i niko neće zakinut ostati.
Jer da je to sve tako crno i bijelo ne bi Alija r.a radio za Jevreja jednog nego bi ga ubio niti bi Osman r.a kupovao bunar od Jevreja, ubio bi ga, niti bi presudili u korist Jevreja koji je optuzio muslimana da mu je oduzeo štiti, rekli bi samo ti si kjafir hajmo te ubiti.
Nije Islam crno bijelo kako ga mnogi dozivljavaju i zele da predstave.

Ženiti i razvoditi se može i žena od čovjeka ako ne ispunjava dužnosti prema njoj kao sex npr ili ako je ne može izdržavati finansijski.
Bogu najmrže dozvoljeno djelo je razvod.
Ako su kršćani frustrirani što moraju biti u braku sa jednom osobom cijeli život ne moraju tu frustraciju na ovaj način iznositi.
Robinje su dozvoljene u sve tri religije pa su kasnije u 20 vijeku zbog društvenih okolnosti i humanizma zabranjene, nije nešto ni pakao human.
I kršćani su imali robova (opet cherrypick pase Stari Zavjet ne paše), lukavo nastojiš da predstaviš ono što je svima zajedničko ekplicitno muslimansko.
Muslimanima nije dozvoljeno bilo krasti plijen za sebe u privatno vlasnistvo, vec za Islam, (neka vrsta socijalizma) ali da u Kur'anu piše da je plijen eksplicitno za Muhammeda a.s dozvoljen kao od poslanika dok je bio zabranjen isto tako Šerijat nije odjednom postao šta je postao.
Bilo je vino dozvoljeno, pa je zabranjeno.
Bilo je otkrivanje žena dozvoljeno i miješanje, pa je kasnije zabranjeno.
Mada opet imaš slučajeva kad je ženi i muškarcu dozvoljeno da se miješaju, što je opet opširna tema.

Kakva je svrha grijeha u kršćanstvu kad možeš raditi šta hoćeš ako prihvatiš da je neko drugi žrtvovan zbog tvog grijeha.
Pa kaže u kršćanstvu je grijeh ubiti (zbog 10 Božijih zapovijedi opet Stari Zavjet) ali ako pogriješiš ispovijedi se i to je to.
Slično muslimansko traženje oprosta od Boga direktno, jer je čovjek griješan, samo ne treba ti ispovijed.

Radi šta hoćeš u kršćanstvu, pokaj se izmoli 10 Oče naš , 5 Zdravo Marijo i idi sa mirm Gospodnjim.

Iako konkretno ubistvo ostavlja posljedicu za psihu i savjest kod muslimana, nemuslimana ,ateiste agnostika pa koliko god oni bili "čisti" , čiste duše pred Bogom sa svojim pokajanjem, al to nas opet vraća na priču Kaina i Abela.

Taj dio pokaj se uopće nije jednostavan kako ga prikazuješ. To nije tek izjaviti "kajem se".

U kratkim crtama:
-Isus je živio i činio čuda (dizao mrtve itd)
-Ostavio nam puruku spašenja ( how-to)
-Isus je umro i uskrsnuo i tako svijetu dokazao da je jači od smrti i da prihvatimo njegovu poruku spašenja
-Očevici su to zapisali

Onaj tko prihvati poruku spašen je.
Onaj tko ide sa namjerom ubijati i potom se kajati, vara, i nije spašen.

Kako nije spašen a Isus se zauzeo za njegov grijeh, hoćeš da kažeš da je taj grijeh varanja veći i od Isusovog zauzimanja?

Haj nećemo ubistvo uzet ćemo blud za primjer.

Šta sex van braka bio, i sad ode mladić ispovidi se kod popa, on mu kaže izmoli to i to, i pokaj se.
Eto ti ta pokora i mladić čist bez grijeha.

Ti misliš da prevara prolazi?
Nije tako.
Drži se zakona ili ne.

Planski griješiti i na ispovijed je varanje i taj nije razumio niti prihvatio poruku spašenja.

A kako se to neplanski grijesi ako si krscanin normalno da znas da je Isus iskupio tvoje grijehe.

Zbilja ne shvaćaš.

Osobe A i B

A: griješi,ubija itd cijeli život. Pokaje se iskreno i istinito. Ne ubija više, prihvaća poruku, spašen je.

B: griješi, ubija, ispovijed, griješi, ubija, ispivijed, griješi, ubija, ispovijed,…
Taj nije shvatio poruku spašenja, nego vara

Zašto je muslimanima teško shvatiti pojam iskrenog pokajanja? Izgleda teško shvaćaju što znači ovaj pojam "iskreno".