Do Muslims & Christians Worship The Same God?

[initiate]

Perhaps 5:5 refers more to Unitarian Christians
who do not hold Jesus as God, son of God, but instead a
a God-Sent to serve, and was elevated by God with a blessed
spirit but limited in power withoput even knowing when is his
final ressurection will be, since all power is to due to God, the
One and Only, the Founder of the Universe and the Lord of
the Angels and Spirits, the Forgiving , the Loving.

The only problem with this is that it does not conform to the
NT writers. For instance, pleroma as used in Col 1:19. Vincent
writes. "The word must be taken in its passive sense- that with
which a thing is filled, not that which fills. The fullness denotes
the sum-total of the divine powers and attributes. In Christ dwelt
fullness of God as deity." Lightfoot states, "to pleroma, the

...

The Gnostics evidently ranked Christ in with these divine
manifestations. Paul countered by arguing that in Christ
God manifests Himself in totality. The use of "katoikeo"

...>

So Paul presents Christ as God made manifest. 1:20
he counters the idea that Christ was any sort of angelic,
neither divine (Deity) nor human.mediator as the
Gnostic taught. It was necessary that in Him ALL

...

Biblical scholars concluded that Matthew copied
from Mark, and Luke copied from both, and that Matthew and
Luke each had two sources in common: the Gospel of Mark
and another gospel now lost, known only as Q, where Q
stands for "Quelle," the German word for source. That is
why Mark, Matthew, and Luke are called the Synoptic
Gospels.

Elaine Pagels, who wrote her doctoral dissertation for Helmut
Koester at Harvard, contended in her best-selling book The
Gnostic Gospels (1979), that early Gnosticism, far from being
a heresy, was simply a Christian variant that happened to be
out of favor with the more politically powerful orthodox Christians.
In her book Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters,
she expounds in great detail on the esoteric and initiatic
Gnostic culture and its influence on Paul's writings.

[Paul]

"initiate" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qMRBg.10513$***@trnddc06...
<snip>

Post by initiate
Biblical scholars concluded that Matthew copied
from Mark, and Luke copied from both, and that Matthew and
Luke each had two sources in common: the Gospel of Mark
and another gospel now lost, known only as Q, where Q
stands for "Quelle," the German word for source. That is
why Mark, Matthew, and Luke are called the Synoptic
Gospels.

Well, this is one of the leading hypotheses on the subject, but not the only
one by any means. The main impediment to it is that we do not have any
actual copies of the presumed "Q". (BTW, not to nitpick, but the term
"synoptic gospels" for MML doesn't derive from the Q hypothesis.)

In any case, it's not entirely clear what Q has to do with the discussion
you're having with Loren -- he was talking about Paul, not MML....

Post by initiate
Elaine Pagels, who wrote her doctoral dissertation for Helmut
Koester at Harvard, contended in her best-selling book The
Gnostic Gospels (1979), that early Gnosticism, far from being
a heresy, was simply a Christian variant that happened to be
out of favor with the more politically powerful orthodox Christians.
In her book Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters,
she expounds in great detail on the esoteric and initiatic
Gnostic culture and its influence on Paul's writings.

Sure. But, Pagels -- despite her ability to make the best-seller list -- is
only one scholar, and is not in the majority on this subject. While it's
true that the distinction between "heresy" and "variant" undoubtedly
depended on whose ox was being gored, the fact is that gnosticism was and is
a heresy from a Christian viewpoint. It's simply very difficult to make
sensible CHRISTIAN theology out of the notion that Jesus was not God (in
some fashion; the result doesn't necessarily have to be strictly Trinitarian
for this purpose), let alone some of the more extreme gnostic concepts (such
as that Jehovah was actually a deviant and deficient god for having created
a physical world to begin with). The gnostics also had serious problems
making their concoctions connect with the actual accounts of Jesus' life
that were circulating very early (the ones that had actual verifiable
details, that is), so the conclusion of the early church that they were
outside the bounds of orthodoxy was really pretty clear (then and now).

In Christ,
Paul

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by initiate
Elaine Pagels, who wrote her doctoral dissertation for Helmut
Koester at Harvard, contended in her best-selling book The
Gnostic Gospels (1979), that early Gnosticism, far from being
a heresy, was simply a Christian variant that happened to be
out of favor with the more politically powerful orthodox Christians.

And it is a deep, black mark against our so-called "Religious Studies"
establishemnt that such an irresponsible thesis was accepted at all.

For only someone competely alien to the spirit of the Gospels and Epistles could
fall under the spell of believing in Gnosticism, with its deeply pagan spirit of
denial of the Trinity and two natures of Christ.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by initiate
Biblical scholars concluded

now lets be fair here. You should have placed "Biblical scholars"
in quotation marks.

Post by initiate
that Matthew copied
from Mark, and Luke copied from both, and that Matthew and
Luke each had two sources in common: the Gospel of Mark
and another gospel now lost, known only as Q, where Q
stands for "Quelle," the German word for source. That is
why Mark, Matthew, and Luke are called the Synoptic
Gospels.

Only liberal revisionist go this far in their analysis. As I said,
the quotation marks should have been added.

Post by initiate
Elaine Pagels,

You mean, "Elaine Pagan."

Post by initiate
who wrote her doctoral dissertation for Helmut
Koester at Harvard, contended in her best-selling book

"Best selling?" In what circles? Liberal, feminists circles
obviously.

Post by initiate
The
Gnostic Gospels (1979), that early Gnosticism, far from being
a heresy,

Surely you jest? You actually believe her?

Post by initiate
was simply a Christian variant that happened to be
out of favor with the more politically powerful orthodox Christians.

"Politically powerful?" I suppose you would conclude that the
Apostles were such as well? After all, they were an elite of which
no entrance was granted except by Divine commission. It was
they, especially Paul, who expressed and defended the orthodox
gospel. Paul clearly teaches that any gospel other than that which
he witnessed to was no gospel at all.

Post by initiate
In her book Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters,

The problem with her analysis is that it's not exegetical rather it's
eisegetical in that she has her presuppositions all in a row laid
out before her before coming to the Pauline text.

Post by initiate
she expounds in great detail on the esoteric and initiatic
Gnostic culture and its influence on Paul's writings.

I have heard her and her kind more times that I care to
remember. She is a dyed in the wool feminist and what
she writes clearly betrays this presuppositional stance.
For instance, she writes:

Peter complains that Mary is dominating the conversation with Jesus and
displacing the rightful priority of Peter and his brother apostles. He
urges Jesus to silence her and is quickly rebuked. Later, however, Mary
admits to Jesus that she hardly dares speak to him freely, because, in
her words, "Peter makes me hesitate; I am afraid of him, because he
hates the female race." Jesus replies that whoever the Spirit
inspires is divinely ordained to speak, whether man or woman.

["The Gnostic Gospels", p. 65.]

Pagels, "Paul and Women: A Response to Recent
Discussion," JAAR 42 (Sept1974) maintains that
Paul should not be seen as a chauvinist but neither
should he be a focal point for the contemporary
discussion. Do you see where she is leading to by
this? Her own conclusion are that conscious of his
own eschaton, Paul could not envision a time like
that of today. She then goes further by suggesting
that rather than look to Paul, one should look to
contemporary scholars and theologians such as
Robin Scroggs. Scroggs is beyond all questioning,
a feminists feminist in case you have never read her.

In the article titled "What Became of God the Mother?
Conflicting Images of God in Early Christianity,"in
"Womanspirit Rising," she further comments that
"the absence of feminine symbolism of God marks
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in striking contrast
to the world's other religious traditions, whether in
Egypt, Babylonia, Greece and Rome, or Africa,
Polynesia, India, and North America."

Here her feministic agenda leaks out all over her writing.

Probably one of the best articles I have read answering
Pagels own heretical views was written by Wayne Flow
in the Sept '81 issue of The Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society, or JETS for short.

A brief quotation will do:

Pagels' rejection of the view of historic Biblical Christianity that
the canonical gospels were written by men who lived in Jesus' time as
a faithful presentation of his person, purpose and work has permitted
her to consider the canonical gospels as political documents chosen
primarily for the purpose of legitimizing the authority of a certain
group of leaders of the early Church. Interestingly enough, the
authority thus rendered legitimate is always stated in terms
anachronistically evoking the Roman Catholic model.

"For nearly 2, 000 years, orthodox Christians have accepted the
view that the apostles alone held definitive religious authority, and
that their only legitimate heirs are priests and bishops, who trace
their ordination back to that same apostolic succession. Even today the
pope traces his-and the primacy he claims over the rest-to Peter
himself, "first of the apostles," since he was "first witness of
the resurrection."[GG. p11]

It is obvious that once one rejects the concept of divine oversight in
the discussion of the origin of the canonical gospels he is free to
treat them as equal to but not better than any other writings and to
treat other writings as of equal value, which Pagels seems to have done
in the case of the gnostic gospels.

end quote.

Obviously if you are so endeared to Pagels, you
must be something of a liberal feminist as well?

[Denis Giron]

Post by initiate
Biblical scholars concluded that Matthew copied
from Mark, and Luke copied from both, and that Matthew and
Luke each had two sources in common: the Gospel of Mark
and another gospel now lost, known only as Q

Actually, Biblical scholars are not unanimous on this issue. If I'm not
mistaken, the majority of critical NT scholars side with the two-source
theory, namely that Matthew and Luke both, independently of one
another, employed Mark and "Q" as sources (on this theory, Luke did not
consult Matthew, which would explain the alleged additions to Q and
Mark by Matthew which Luke seems unaware of). There are other scholars,
however, who have denied the existence of Q (Michael Goulder presenting
the most powerful case in his "Luke: A New Paradigm"). A good
introduction to the competing theories can be found in the opening
chapter of Christopher M. Tuckett's "Q and the history of early
Christianity" (note that Tuckett is himself a proponent of the
two-source theory, and argued for such in his book). Mind you that all
of this is quite speculative, and regarding "Q" proponents of the
theory cannot even agree if it was a written text or a collection of
oral traditions, a single source or a body of material, what language
it was in (e.g. Luke was obviously written in Greek, while a theory of
Aramaic primacy for Matthew is not unreasonable), et cetera.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Obviously if you are so endeared to Pagels, you
must be something of a liberal feminist as well?

B - He says this like that is a bad thing?
Why not go the whole route Isender and call this person a (wait for it and
steady yourselves!.....) a "woman lover!"

Everyone who seems to differ from Isender has an "agenda" it seems.
Once again we have the paranoia of the "reds under the bed" mind set
again.

Duck and cover my dear...Duck and cover...

Bren

[Chris Smith]

Post by initiate
Biblical scholars concluded that Matthew copied
from Mark, and Luke copied from both, and that Matthew and
Luke each had two sources in common: the Gospel of Mark
and another gospel now lost, known only as Q, where Q
stands for "Quelle," the German word for source. That is
why Mark, Matthew, and Luke are called the Synoptic
Gospels.

I am no expert in this area, but several years ago I took the time to
really examine the Q thesis in great detail, and look at the evidence
and the arguments for and against. I have a great interest in what we
can learn by applying the intellect to questions, and I certainly did
not start out biased against it. Rather, I initially accepted it as a
foregone conclusion, having heard that it is the crown jewel of results
from modern textual analysis of scripture. Nevertheless, I came to the
conclusion that it appears to be false.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Q thesis is often defended BECAUSE it
was at one time the crown jewel of biblical textual criticism. In light
of additional research, though, there is a growing body of evidence
suggesting an alternative. That alternative is as follows. Matthew
wrote first, writing to one audience (largely Jewish and traditional),
and therefore included what would have been relevant to Jewish culture
-- including his infamous genaeology. Luke wrote second, and drew from
Matthew, but removed what was not relevant for his purposes, added some,
and otherwise adapted the text to fit a different audience (less Jewish,
more Roman). Finally, Mark drew from both Mark and Luke. Mark was a
traveling missionary. He produced a version of the Gospel more suited
for his missionary work. He would have spent a lot of time introducing
the gospel story to new people, so he produced a gospel that omitted a
lot of details and moral exposition, and was intended to focus on the
*plot* of what happened.

The evidence of this comes from a variety of textual sources, and from
historical records. In the text, we find evidence that Matthew was
written very early in either Hebrew or Aramaic (there are Semitic poetic
forms in parts of the text), although only the Greek text survives. We
find strong evidence that practically requires either that Mark was
looking at both Matthew *and* Luke when he wrote, or that if the
priority of Mark is correct, Matthew and Luke had to have coordinated
their gospel writing very heavily, on a sentence-by-sentence basis.
Either possibility contradicts the Q thesis. If we suppose that Markan
priority is correct, there's simply no known reason why Matthew and Luke
would have decided to divide up Mark's sentences between them, while
carefully avoiding the duplication of phrases in both gospels.

The historical evidence is simply that every single extant piece of
ancient writing that discusses the order in which the gospels were
written puts Matthew first. You have to go forward three or four
centuries to find people who have forgotten the order and now guess at
other incorrect orders.

Possibly to Lsenders' dismay, I consider myself both liberal and
feminist; but I still can't justify in fact the Q thesis or Markan
priority in the gospels. A number of people who defend the idea simply
because they see it as synonymous with defending textual criticism as a
methodology for understanding scripture. Were there less such
ideological support, I believe the idea would be quickly supplanted. If
indeed textual criticism is to be useful, we first need to be willing to
consider all ideas and judge them on their merits against the available
evidence, not on their distinguished historical place in the development
of the field.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Obviously if you are so endeared to Pagels, you
must be something of a liberal feminist as well?

B - He says this like that is a bad thing?

It is.

Post by B.G. Kent
Why not go the whole route Isender and call this person a (wait for it and
steady yourselves!.....) a "woman lover!"

Because people who really love women do not lead them down the path to
destruction with so-called 'feminism'.

Post by B.G. Kent
Everyone who seems to differ from Isender has an "agenda" it seems.

You certainly do.

[snip]

[initiate]

Post by Paul
In any case, it's not entirely clear what Q has to do with the discussion
you're having with Loren -- he was talking about Paul, not MML....

I admit that I sent an incomplete post inadvertantly. The point(s) that
I was heading towards is that, as advised in the Quran or even
commanded, we should follow **the Best** of what is revealed to
us, as mentioned in 39:18 & 55. Now if this is meant for Quran,
a more comprehensible revelation over 23 years compiled with
painstaking care than, let's say, the Prophetic narration known as
Hadith or the more fragmented New Testemant, then one should
approach the various writings of the NT, including the Gnostic
writings, with caution in light of another mega revelation that
came afterwards and swept the region.

The Q source has to do with giving validation to the Islamic
position that the true "Christianity" and its purpose are best
found in the Quran, considering that space it was givin, such
as in Sura 3 The family of Imran, Sura 5 The Table & sura 9
Miriam).

Post by Paul

Post by initiate
Elaine Pagels, who wrote her doctoral dissertation for Helmut
Koester at Harvard, contended in her best-selling book The
Gnostic Gospels (1979), that early Gnosticism, far from being
a heresy, was simply a Christian variant that happened to be
out of favor with the more politically powerful orthodox Christians.
In her book Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters,
she expounds in great detail on the esoteric and initiatic
Gnostic culture and its influence on Paul's writings.

Sure. But, Pagels -- despite her ability to make the best-seller list -- is
only one scholar, and is not in the majority on this subject. While it's
true that the distinction between "heresy" and "variant" undoubtedly
depended on whose ox was being gored, the fact is that gnosticism was and is
a heresy from a Christian viewpoint. It's simply very difficult to make
sensible CHRISTIAN theology out of the notion that Jesus was not God (in
some fashion; the result doesn't necessarily have to be strictly Trinitarian
for this purpose),

Well, one can incorporate similar Trinity to Islam since it is
the Holy Spirit that revealed the Quran to Prophet Mohammad
[Quran 16:102] who is also considered the SEAL of the Prophets
[33:40], (Mohammad means the praised one in Arabic btw),
which won't make it any better. This should be read in context
with John 14:17

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can not
bear them now. Howbeit when he, the spirit of Truth, is come,
he will quide you unto all truth, for he shall hear, that shall he
speak; and he well show you things to come. he shall glorify me"

In the Quran taking prophets and angels as gaurdians
from beneath God, let alone "gods" is polythiesm compromising
monothiesm, and THE unforgivable sin, as mentioned in the Quran.

Perhaps a reassesment of Christianity is long overdue. Just how it
defines itself is problematic. For example, in the Quran Christians
are identified as *Na'sara,* means Aiding to Vistory or Supporters,
as well as *Naseereen* in Levantine Arabic, which is closer to
Aramaic. It became distorted or identified in Greek as Nazoreans.

Christians, however, means "Maseehees" in Arabic, which also
how Arab Christians identify themselves, which means "Anointeds" in
English. That by itself is not bad since anointed presumably
with perfumes is a positive thing, and perhaps taking it into that
context is more liberating. It is like calling Muslims (Accepters of
God's Sovereignty or Submitters) as Muhammadans. Although many
Muslims will consider such label as an honor, it is not what Muhammad
himself preached.

Post by Paul
let alone some of the more extreme gnostic concepts (such
as that Jehovah was actually a deviant and deficient god for having created
a physical world to begin with). The gnostics also had serious problems
making their concoctions connect with the actual accounts of Jesus' life
that were circulating very early (the ones that had actual verifiable
details, that is), so the conclusion of the early church that they were
outside the bounds of orthodoxy was really pretty clear (then and now).

The term Gnostic applies to a wide range of thinkers and
philosophies, and I am pointing out to the highly likely
Gnositc influence on Paul's writings as well as on the Gospel
writers. The point is, as mentioned int he begining of
the post, one should excercise extreme caution to arrive at
*following the best of revelation,* as mentioned in
Quran 39:18 & 55.

Post by Paul
In Christ
Paul

In God we Trust
Peace,

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Obviously if you are so endeared to Pagels, you
must be something of a liberal feminist as well?

B - He says this like that is a bad thing?
Why not go the whole route Isender and call this person a (wait for it and
steady yourselves!.....) a "woman lover!"

I've been married to the same woman for nearly 30 yrs. So I guess I'm
a woman lover as well. However, "woman lover" is not anywhere near
being a definition of "feminism." No other religion in the history of
the world has granted women a greater dignity than Christianity.
However, like everything else, from democracy to the nuclear family,
removed from the prescriptions of Biblical Christianity, they all
become nothing more than another humanistic, man/woman centric
philosophy which CANNOT be lived out true to their own presuppositions.
This is why I have often pointed people to the movie, "Changing Lanes"
asking them to consider what actually occurs to the main characters
from a philosophical/ethical view point.

Non-biblical feminism IS a bad thing. As Creator of the universe, God
designed and created the constructs. When he placed woman subservient
to man, in the same vein that Christ, in the kenosis, was placed "a
little lower than angels." But feminism does not conform to these
standards nor does it recognize God as the Creator.


You are not being honest or fair in your reply.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by B.G. Kent

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Obviously if you are so endeared to Pagels, you
must be something of a liberal feminist as well?

B - He says this like that is a bad thing?
Why not go the whole route Isender and call this person a (wait for it and
steady yourselves!.....) a "woman lover!"

I've been married to the same woman for nearly 30 yrs. So I guess I'm
a woman lover as well. However, "woman lover" is not anywhere near
being a definition of "feminism."

B - My friend you act as if feminism is a bad thing. "Feminism is the
radical notion that woman are people."



No other religion in the history of

Post by l***@hotmail.com
the world has granted women a greater dignity than Christianity.

B - Which kind of Christianity? the conservative kind? I would beg to
differ then. The Liberal kind? I would almost agree. Wicca, I believe is
far more dignified to women than Conservative Christianity is though.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
However, like everything else, from democracy to the nuclear family,
removed from the prescriptions of Biblical Christianity, they all
become nothing more than another humanistic, man/woman centric
philosophy which CANNOT be lived out true to their own presuppositions.

B - so says Isender in his opinion..which like mine...is all that this is.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is why I have often pointed people to the movie, "Changing Lanes"
asking them to consider what actually occurs to the main characters
from a philosophical/ethical view point.
Non-biblical feminism IS a bad thing. As Creator of the universe, God
designed and created the constructs. When he placed woman subservient
to man, in the same vein that Christ, in the kenosis, was placed "a
little lower than angels." But feminism does not conform to these
standards nor does it recognize God as the Creator.

B - prove it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are not being honest or fair in your reply.

B - I am being very honest and very fair Isender. You are constantly
talking as if you have the only interp..the only way..the only path and I
find this very insulting and egoistic and disrespectful to God.

In my opinion,

Bren