Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Can religious co-exist side-by-side?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DaChaser said:

Allah told Muhhammed that he was to spread the truth of Islam by the sword to all, and that unbelievers were to submit or be killed off, while Christians and Jews could pay taxes and live, but be second class under Islam!

Allah not the God of the Bible, nor was Muhhammed a true prophet!

And Mohammed told his followers to treat all people of the book well. May be a contradiction.

Oh, and they accept Jesus as a prophet. The trace themselves back to Abraham and Ishamel. Now I've heard people say  that Allah is not the god of the Bible. However, that is not necessarily true. Allah in Arabic means God. There was a Baptist pastor at the seminary in Prague one year from Nigeria. He was a master teacher. He could take a complex subject and teach it in a simple way that made it understandable. I often heard him pray in his Nigerian language and in his language. He would use the word Allah as the Nigerian word for God. That was a revelation to me. I asked him about it and he confirmed that in his native language the word for God is Allah. So, it is not restricted to Islam. So, if the Qua'an was translated into English where it says Allah the translation would be God. 

I completely agree that Mohammed was not a true prophet. I agree their understanding of Christ, though they consider him the 2nd greatest prophet, is not correct. I also know that not all Muslims are radical, fundamentalists bent on destroying all who do not agree with them. Just like some Christians, those radicals have given a black eye to all.

image.png.919748f662da1cbb404ef63d87128877.png

This is an excellent book on the three faiths, the 'people of the book.'

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bill, I think defending Islam is not a good thing, or even appropriate for this forum. Islam is and always has been a murderous false religion. Their history proves this is true and it is true today also. It is a favorite ruse for those that try to defend Islam to always try to put forth the idea that not all Muslims are radical; I and many other people, both Christian and non-Christian simply do not believe that propaganda. Well I remember seeing the gleeful spectacle of thousands cheering in the streets when the Twin Towers came down, that is the real Islam.

For you to try to compare Christians to murderous Islam by saying Christians have done these atrocities too is not only untrue, it is wrong.

So, in closing, if you would like to continue with your original post topic, please do so, but without zeroing in on Islam and then defending it to Baptists on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
20 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

And Mohammed told his followers to treat all people of the book well. May be a contradiction.

Oh, and they accept Jesus as a prophet. The trace themselves back to Abraham and Ishamel. Now I've heard people say  that Allah is not the god of the Bible. However, that is not necessarily true. Allah in Arabic means God. There was a Baptist pastor at the seminary in Prague one year from Nigeria. He was a master teacher. He could take a complex subject and teach it in a simple way that made it understandable. I often heard him pray in his Nigerian language and in his language. He would use the word Allah as the Nigerian word for God. That was a revelation to me. I asked him about it and he confirmed that in his native language the word for God is Allah. So, it is not restricted to Islam. So, if the Qua'an was translated into English where it says Allah the translation would be God. 

I completely agree that Mohammed was not a true prophet. I agree their understanding of Christ, though they consider him the 2nd greatest prophet, is not correct. I also know that not all Muslims are radical, fundamentalists bent on destroying all who do not agree with them. Just like some Christians, those radicals have given a black eye to all.

image.png.919748f662da1cbb404ef63d87128877.png

This is an excellent book on the three faiths, the 'people of the book.'

Those such as Isis though are the closest to what their prophet Muhhamed taught, as Islam is commissioned by Allah to take over the world, and that is to be done by extreme force of need be!

4 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bill, I think defending Islam is not a good thing, or even appropriate for this forum. Islam is and always has been a murderous false religion. Their history proves this is true and it is true today also. It is a favorite ruse for those that try to defend Islam to always try to put forth the idea that not all Muslims are radical; I and many other people, both Christian and non-Christian simply do not believe that propaganda. Well I remember seeing the gleeful spectacle of thousands cheering in the streets when the Twin Towers came down, that is the real Islam.

For you to try to compare Christians to murderous Islam by saying Christians have done these atrocities too is not only untrue, it is wrong.

So, in closing, if you would like to continue with your original post topic, please do so, but without zeroing in on Islam and then defending it to Baptists on this board.

Islam is a Satanic counterfeit of the the messiah and real Gospel, as the angel that appeared to Muhhammed and gave to him those revelations was no doubt same one that appeared to adam and Eve and to others such as Joseph Smith!

20 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

And Mohammed told his followers to treat all people of the book well. May be a contradiction.

Oh, and they accept Jesus as a prophet. The trace themselves back to Abraham and Ishamel. Now I've heard people say  that Allah is not the god of the Bible. However, that is not necessarily true. Allah in Arabic means God. There was a Baptist pastor at the seminary in Prague one year from Nigeria. He was a master teacher. He could take a complex subject and teach it in a simple way that made it understandable. I often heard him pray in his Nigerian language and in his language. He would use the word Allah as the Nigerian word for God. That was a revelation to me. I asked him about it and he confirmed that in his native language the word for God is Allah. So, it is not restricted to Islam. So, if the Qua'an was translated into English where it says Allah the translation would be God. 

I completely agree that Mohammed was not a true prophet. I agree their understanding of Christ, though they consider him the 2nd greatest prophet, is not correct. I also know that not all Muslims are radical, fundamentalists bent on destroying all who do not agree with them. Just like some Christians, those radicals have given a black eye to all.

image.png.919748f662da1cbb404ef63d87128877.png

This is an excellent book on the three faiths, the 'people of the book.'

Islam does not worship Yahweh, but a satanic counterfeit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DaChaser said:

Those such as Isis though are the closest to what their prophet Muhhamed taught, as Islam is commissioned by Allah to take over the world, and that is to be done by extreme force of need be!

Islam is a Satanic counterfeit of the the messiah and real Gospel, as the angel that appeared to Muhhammed and gave to him those revelations was no doubt same one that appeared to adam and Eve and to others such as Joseph Smith!

Islam does not worship Yahweh, but a satanic counterfeit!

I do not feel that I am defending Islam, but I do think there is a lot of misinformation being given. I have read too much history, listened to too many  lectures, both religious and secular, as well as becoming friends with Arab-Christians from the Mid-East, to buy into the popular beliefs of our day. My personal belief is that if the British and French had followed up on their promises to the Arabs during World War I we would have a much more peaceful world. But, they reigned on those promises and that led to the founding of radical groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt that began in the 1920's. Since that time no Arab government has trusted the promises of any Western national government. World War I never really ended. The fighting ended, but the decisions made after the war led to Hitler, the Communist Soviet Union, and radical Muslim groups. 

The best witness we have for Christ is love not distrust and hate. A good example of this was the response of the International Baptist Theological Seminary when during a conflict many people were left homeless. The seminary took in homeless women and children, many who were Muslim. They were treated well and reported their treatment to the mosque leadership. The leaders of the mosque came to them and said, tell us why you took the women in and treated them well. We have never seen Christians do this and we would not take Christians in. This opened a continuing peaceful dialogue between the two groups. If we are ever to influence Muslims to come to Christ we will have to do it through love, not hate. 

I do not believe ISIS is close to what Mohammed taught any more than the IRA in Ireland was close to what Jesus taught. Both would defend themselves by saying they were close to the the teachings of their religion. It all boils down to a person or groups interpretation of their scriptures. I believe there are a fair number of groups who call themselves Christian, but IMHO, they are simply Christian in name only and there are such groups who claim millions of members. I won't go into what I think these people are as it would open up too many 'rabbit tracks' that people would start down but that lead nowhere.

I have no problem with you description of the false prophets.

 

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I do not feel that I am defending Islam, but I do think there is a lot of misinformation being given. I have read too much history, listened to too many  lectures, both religious and secular, as well as becoming friends with Arab-Christians from the Mid-East, to buy into the popular beliefs of our day. My personal belief is that if the British and French had followed up on their promises to the Arabs during World War I we would have a much more peaceful world. But, they reigned on those promises and that led to the founding of radical groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt that began in the 1920's. Since that time no Arab government has trusted the promises of any Western national government. World War I never really ended. The fighting ended, but the decisions made after the war led to Hitler, the Communist Soviet Union, and radical Muslim groups. 

The best witness we have for Christ is love not distrust and hate. A good example of this was the response of the International Baptist Theological Seminary when during a conflict many people were left homeless. The seminary took in homeless women and children, many who were Muslim. They were treated well and reported their treatment to the mosque leadership. The leaders of the mosque came to them and said, tell us why you took the women in and treated them well. We have never seen Christians do this and we would not take Christians in. This opened a continuing peaceful dialogue between the two groups. If we are ever to influence Muslims to come to Christ we will have to do it through love, not hate. 

I do not believe ISIS is close to what Mohammed taught any more than the IRA in Ireland was close to what Jesus taught. Both would defend themselves by saying they were close to the the teachings of their religion. It all boils down to a person or groups interpretation of their scriptures. I believe there are a fair number of groups who call themselves Christian, but IMHO, they are simply Christian in name only and there are such groups who claim millions of members. I won't go into what I think these people are as it would open up too many 'rabbit tracks' that people would start down but that lead nowhere.

I have no problem with you description of the false prophets.

 

The prophet Muhhammed gave forth to the Muslims the Jihad, as they do practice the law of Abrogation, which means that all of the sayings and teachings from his later years after the exile take precedence over the earlier sayings and teachings, so yes, ISIS is now practicing what the prophet of Islam told them that Allah commands them to be doing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DaChaser said:

The prophet Muhhammed gave forth to the Muslims the Jihad, as they do practice the law of Abrogation, which means that all of the sayings and teachings from his later years after the exile take precedence over the earlier sayings and teachings, so yes, ISIS is now practicing what the prophet of Islam told them that Allah commands them to be doing!

I forgot to tell you about a Jordanian Muslim lady I met. She had just finished a masters degree in Management of Conflict Resolution at the Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, VA. She said that the English Qur'an that is distributed in the West is a Saudi translation. She had never seen one before coming to the USA. She said, "I was horrified when I read it. It is a very bad translation and I can see why people here hate us. It puts words in the Profits mouth that are not in the Arabic version. If I thought the followers of the Profit were believers as shown in the English translation, I would hate them also." She was returning to Jordan to work with a Muslim agency trying to promote peace between Israel and Jordan.

It is a shame we are limited by language and cannot read the original. Just like, at least for me, it is not good that I do not understand Greek or Hebrew. I have to depend on translations and I know that meaning is lost in any translation. There are concepts in one language that are spoken with one word but that cannot be translated into another language with one word. Meaning is lost. The three Greek words in the Bible, Eros, Agape, and Philia, when translated into English must be written as "love." But much is lost as those three loves are different. The prime example of this is when Christ asked Peter three times if he [Peter] loved him. In English it is always one word, 'love'. But in Greek this is not true. The first two times Christ uses the word, Agape and Peter replies Philia. Finally, the third time Christ changes the word and asks if he [Peter] Philias him. Big difference and Peter never uses the deeper, most pure word agape.

By the way, do you agree with me that the only way to win Muslims to Christ is through love?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Interesting video.  I did watch it all the way through.

To answer the topic in the thread title: Yes, I do think religions can exist side-by-side.  After all, Christianity existed alongside other religions from its start, although it suffered persecution pretty much from the start, too.

One question I would have is if the other religions would let Christianity exist alongside them.  I realize that is the premise of the video.  But, the unknown is when it comes to evangelism.  That is part of our faith, too...not just praying in our churches, which is what the video emphasizes.  

That is where the rubber hits the road and is a point not addressed in the video.  What happens if the Christians (or other religions) try to lead others to their faith?  Will they still be tolerated?

I’m not trying to insinuate one way or the other, but the question entered my mind as I watched the video.

Edited by NotAshamed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bill, my previous post to you about zeroing in on Islam and defending it on our board was not a suggestion, it was a request from a moderator that you have now chosen to disregard with your last two posts. Understand that I am not the only one that dislikes what you posted, I have had complaints from other board members also.

If your posts that completely disregarded my request were accidents I could overlook them, but they were no accidents, they were intentional. For this cause I a awarding you two penaty points, please note that our board rules state that three penalty point is sufficient to ban a member. Please take this to heart, I do not like banning anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bill, my previous post to you about zeroing in on Islam and defending it on our board was not a suggestion, it was a request from a moderator that you have now chosen to disregard with your last two posts. Understand that I am not the only one that dislikes what you posted, I have had complaints from other board members also.

If your posts that completely disregarded my request were accidents I could overlook them, but they were no accidents, they were intentional. For this cause I a awarding you two penaty points, please note that our board rules state that three penalty point is sufficient to ban a member. Please take this to heart, I do not like banning anyone.

I guess at 80 I am a generation or two or three or four older than most on the Board. Growing up a Baptist I was encouraged to be open in discussions and to defend the right of others to their opinion. We were taught out Baptist heritage when we, as Baptist, were jailed and silenced by others. We were taught this should never happen to anyone again.I am sorry our society has lost the art of discussion and conversation.  This is sad. 

May all on the board be blessed in all they do. 

Adieu.

Image may contain: text that says 'RALPH WALDO EMERSON heart that He He said, "Write it on every day bést day in is rich who owns the day, and no one owns the who allows it be invaded with fret and anxiety. Finish every day and be done with it. You have done what could. Some blunders absurdities, doubt crept in. Forget them you can, tomorrow a new day; begin it and serenely, high to be cumbered with your old nonsense. This new day is too dear, with its hopes and invitations, to waste a yesterdays." moment on'

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I forgot to tell you about a Jordanian Muslim lady I met. She had just finished a masters degree in Management of Conflict Resolution at the Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, VA. She said that the English Qur'an that is distributed in the West is a Saudi translation. She had never seen one before coming to the USA. She said, "I was horrified when I read it. It is a very bad translation and I can see why people here hate us. It puts words in the Profits mouth that are not in the Arabic version. If I thought the followers of the Profit were believers as shown in the English translation, I would hate them also." She was returning to Jordan to work with a Muslim agency trying to promote peace between Israel and Jordan.

It is a shame we are limited by language and cannot read the original. Just like, at least for me, it is not good that I do not understand Greek or Hebrew. I have to depend on translations and I know that meaning is lost in any translation. There are concepts in one language that are spoken with one word but that cannot be translated into another language with one word. Meaning is lost. The three Greek words in the Bible, Eros, Agape, and Philia, when translated into English must be written as "love." But much is lost as those three loves are different. The prime example of this is when Christ asked Peter three times if he [Peter] loved him. In English it is always one word, 'love'. But in Greek this is not true. The first two times Christ uses the word, Agape and Peter replies Philia. Finally, the third time Christ changes the word and asks if he [Peter] Philias him. Big difference and Peter never uses the deeper, most pure word agape.

By the way, do you agree with me that the only way to win Muslims to Christ is through love?

there are currently 37 known seperate Arabic editions of the Koran, with thousands of differences between each on of them and the accepted standard version, so even in Arabic still very bad theology!

17 hours ago, NotAshamed said:

Interesting video.  I did watch it all the way through.

To answer the topic in the thread title: Yes, I do think religions can exist side-by-side.  After all, Christianity existed alongside other religions from its start, although it suffered persecution pretty much from the start, too.

One question I would have is if the other religions would let Christianity exist alongside them.  I realize that is the premise of the video.  But, the unknown is when it comes to evangelism.  That is part of our faith, too...not just praying in our churches, which is what the video emphasizes.  

That is where the rubber hits the road and is a point not addressed in the video.  What happens if the Christians (or other religions) try to lead others to their faith?  Will they still be tolerated?

I’m not trying to insinuate one way or the other, but the question entered my mind as I watched the video.

if a christian even has a bible in places such as Saudi Arabia, that is a killable offense AGAINST ISLAM!

14 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Bill, my previous post to you about zeroing in on Islam and defending it on our board was not a suggestion, it was a request from a moderator that you have now chosen to disregard with your last two posts. Understand that I am not the only one that dislikes what you posted, I have had complaints from other board members also.

If your posts that completely disregarded my request were accidents I could overlook them, but they were no accidents, they were intentional. For this cause I a awarding you two penaty points, please note that our board rules state that three penalty point is sufficient to ban a member. Please take this to heart, I do not like banning anyone.

I think that many Christians have been duped into believing that Islam is this so called religion of peace, while in truth, it is a satanic counterfeit, with a false Jesus and a false gospel and a false god!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

there are currently 37 known seperate Arabic editions of the Koran, with thousands of differences between each on of them and the accepted standard version, so even in Arabic still very bad theology!”

DaChaser -  I am not sure where you read or seen this, but as someone who has studied Islam for nearly 19 years I am not aware of multiple Qurans. There are different many English Qurans and can be slightly different worded depending on the translator. Too my knowledge I am unaware of any “editions” in the Arabic text. It’s similar to different translations/versions of the Bible where they word things different but mean the same thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Despite their claims of only one Quran there are 20 different Arabic versions and seven versions mentioned in the Hadith. This is in Arabic. But apparently, today's Arabic is not quite the same Arabic as Mohammad would have spoken (he was illiterate). Just like today's Greek is not the same as New Testament Greek.

Sadly, as far as English versions of the Bible there's probably over 300 now, that's including paraphrases and ones not in print anymore. I have a list of nearly 250 versions/paraphrases from 1900 to 2000. So I assume at least 50 more have been churned out since then. $$$ From what I've read about American copyright law is there has to be at least 10,000 changes to the English text for it to qualify as a new version of the bible.

No wonder nobody believes the bible anymore. Scholars have made a farce out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It’s my understanding that before the time of Uthman ibn Affan there were versions that were slightly different. We have to remember that back then in Saudi Arabia the Quran  was stored in people’s memories because of its poetic and easily memorized. Even children today learn to memorize the Quran.

If that was the case then I’m sure many people had forgotten or confused certain parts which was causing a lot of confusion about which was authentic. When Uthman became the third caliph he decided to examine and compile all the variations and was able to discern what belonged in the scripture and what did it. So Uthmans Quran is the one we have today. 

Edited by Disciple.Luke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 8/8/2020 at 9:58 PM, Disciple.Luke said:

there are currently 37 known seperate Arabic editions of the Koran, with thousands of differences between each on of them and the accepted standard version, so even in Arabic still very bad theology!”

DaChaser -  I am not sure where you read or seen this, but as someone who has studied Islam for nearly 19 years I am not aware of multiple Qurans. There are different many English Qurans and can be slightly different worded depending on the translator. Too my knowledge I am unaware of any “editions” in the Arabic text. It’s similar to different translations/versions of the Bible where they word things different but mean the same thing.

 

There were 30 known different Arabic versions of the Koran, and at present time, 37 Arabic versions available! Not translations, but in Arabic! This refutes the Muslim take of but one Koran!

On 8/9/2020 at 10:02 AM, SureWord said:

Despite their claims of only one Quran there are 20 different Arabic versions and seven versions mentioned in the Hadith. This is in Arabic. But apparently, today's Arabic is not quite the same Arabic as Mohammad would have spoken (he was illiterate). Just like today's Greek is not the same as New Testament Greek.

Sadly, as far as English versions of the Bible there's probably over 300 now, that's including paraphrases and ones not in print anymore. I have a list of nearly 250 versions/paraphrases from 1900 to 2000. So I assume at least 50 more have been churned out since then. $$$ From what I've read about American copyright law is there has to be at least 10,000 changes to the English text for it to qualify as a new version of the bible.

No wonder nobody believes the bible anymore. Scholars have made a farce out of it.

 

18 hours ago, Disciple.Luke said:

It’s my understanding that before the time of Uthman ibn Affan there were versions that were slightly different. We have to remember that back then in Saudi Arabia the Quran  was stored in people’s memories because of its poetic and easily memorized. Even children today learn to memorize the Quran.

If that was the case then I’m sure many people had forgotten or confused certain parts which was causing a lot of confusion about which was authentic. When Uthman became the third caliph he decided to examine and compile all the variations and was able to discern what belonged in the scripture and what did it. So Uthmans Quran is the one we have today. 

Muhhammed never had the Koran at his time, as first one made after he died, and another in 652, NO copies of that available now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • Members
On 8/10/2020 at 6:29 AM, DaChaser said:

There were 30 known different Arabic versions of the Koran, and at present time, 37 Arabic versions available! Not translations, but in Arabic! This refutes the Muslim take of but one Koran!

 

Muhhammed never had the Koran at his time, as first one made after he died, and another in 652, NO copies of that available now!

Yes I agree that there wasn't any Quran in written form during Muhammad's life time. While he was living the Quran was mostly memorized or verses written down on anything available.

My only point was that the first official written Quran was produced under the authority of the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan. I believe he decided to do compile a standard canon because after the death of Muhammad there started to be confusion about what was original taught as wrong verses crept in over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 15 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...