I did bible study years ago. I was taught by a Christian priest in my library who explained to me that ACTS was a pragmatic response to please theophilus.
"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke." (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)
So based on some conclusion, you're willing to die for defending the idea that the Book of Acts was the True Word of GOD Almighty? If the book was inspired by GOD Almighty, then how come it wasn't mentioned in the book itself to help us filter it out from the many other "false doctrines"? Are we sure that this book too is not a man-made false doctrine?
The Book of ROMANS... again, this one is also dodgy as dodgy gets.
It was writen by PAUL, who was SAUL the infamous mass murderer of the early Christians - a man who never even met Jesus, was not Jewish by blood like Jesus or his apostles - and claimed he may have seen an apparition of Jesus in the form of light - LUCIFER appears as light - this is in the bible too.
Keep in mind that Paul himself admitted that he wasn't sure whether the Holy Spirit was inspiring him or not. Please visit:
Paul's Delusions: In 1 Corinthians 7:40, he claimed that he "thinks" that he has the Holy Spirit in him!
Having said that, let us now see what the Bible theologians say about Paul's books:
"Although the introduction, which is rather lengthy, and the conclusion, which has a longer list of greetings than usual, identify this book as an epistle, the content as a whole does not have the occasional character or personal touch usually found in the Pauline letters. (The Amplified Bible, Page 1297)"
So it's quite possible and probable that the letter (book) of Romans was any of the following:
Written by Paul and other people.
Written by people other than Paul.
Written by Paul and altered by others.
Written by unknown people altogether.
"The writer of this letter was the apostle Paul (see 1:1). No voice from the early church was ever raised against his authorship. (From the NIV Bible Commentary , page 1705)"
Ok, but notice how in this Book, we see the actual author himself, and in the ones above, we see nothing but conclusions. If GOD was the actual inspirer of all of these Books, then He wouldn't put us in the agony of making some conclusions to figure out His Words. Is GOD the author of confusion? Paul is also clear about his ownership of the Books of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians.
But why must we take every single word that Paul spoke especially during his conversations with others as Words of GOD Almighty?!
Is Paul GOD Himself? No Christian believes in that. Paul fought with Saint Peter and accused him of being "clearly in the wrong" (Galatians: 2:11-12), and had a huge argument with Saint Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39).
Did GOD favor Paul over Barnabas and Peter and inspired him the words while he was fighting with them? I don't think so!.
Paul himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-30).
And since Paul never met Jesus in person (Acts 9:2-4. Note: Paul's name used to be Saul. Yet, Paul admittedly wasn't even sure whether the Holy Spirit was inspiring him or not), and only claimed that Jesus came to him in person then there is always the possibility of him being untruthful. Since Paul never performed any miracles to help us believe his claim of Prophet hood, then his claim about him being GOD's apostle is just as good as me for instance claiming to be GOD's apostle.
Paul could just as well be another Benny Hyne, except that Benny Hyne performed miracles (that were exposed to be fake of course), but Paul never performed anything.
I hope you see how confusing the Bible really is. Its books are believed today from conclusions only as you've seen above, and it is only to be believed by blind faith. Blind faith is not the way to believe in GOD Almighty's Words, because GOD is not the author of confusion.
Your question is as follows:
Sidhuriel Wrote:How does Islam look at the law; and the things you need to enter the Kingdom?
Which law? Ten Commandments? The Mosaic? Christian? or Shariah?
I'll do these one by one.
Ten Commandments - all the Muslims follow these, for us it is common sense.
Mosaic Law - this is the corrupted law of the Jews whom Jesus (pbuh) came to bring back to the original teachings due to the Jews corrupting their scriptures in order to take advantage of the people and to disgrace the holy temple in Jerusalem. The Mosaic law wasn't fixed by Jesus pbuh because his appointed time as the MESSIAH is yet to come.
Christian law - This is the dodgiest one - Pauline Christianity watered down the law and made that which was forbidden - now unforbidden.
For example - Jesus pbuh NEVER ate swine, but Christians do because the old laws apparently do not apply to them due to the lies in the bollocks books you cited above. No offence intended - my gripe is with the anonymous authors and the pragmatic liars who warranted such distortions in scripture.
Shariah Law - in 600 BC when Judaism was still Monotheistic and reputable as a faith, a group of Jews migrated to Arabia - in order to await the Prophet who would be the seal of all prophets.
They waited millenia, these Jews were unaffected by the distortions in their scripture because they were not in Jerusalem to know it - they were in Yathrib, Arabia.
And when they saw the Prophet Muhammad pbuh - they all ended up becoming Muslims - a continuation of the Abrahamic legacy.
The LAW is a constant - given to a people whom it suits. For example, the law of the Jews advised that the Jew doesn't eat shellfish. To this day they do not. But Christians do - Jesus pbuh didn't.
Ask yourself, these questions sister Sidhuriel,
Who follows Jesus more accurately - the Christians or the Muslims?
Who prays like Jesus prayed? The Christians or the Muslims?
Who observe the commandents like Jeus did?
Who observe the law in relation to "lawful and unlawful" like Jesus did?
Who worships only one God like Jesus did?
The answer to all of these is The Muslims.