It's uncanny sometimes how similar are the beginnings of the various religions.

Joseph Smith wrote down the religious guidance from the golden plates that the Angel Moroni gave him, and created Mormonism

Mohammed wrote down the religious guidance provided by the Angel Gibraele, and creates Islam

Paul wrote down his ideas on religion following a vision of Jesus, and created his brand of Christianity.

Interesting that in none of theses cases did the inspiration come directly from "the source", but via an intermediary.

If there were a god, I'm pretty sure he would have made a better job of communicating to us mortals.

Congratulations, CJ Morgan . . . you have succeeded in finding some nasty singular quotes from the Old and New Testament, which purport to show that the Biblical lunatics of old are just as crazy as the "Prophet" and other lunatics of the Quran. So, tell us something we don't already know! The palpable truth we must face TODAY is that it is NOT blond-haired and blue-eyed Lutherans from Iceland who slammed jet planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and who try to use suicide bombs to sabotage western economies and force a theocracy and "Caliphate" on the rest of the world.
The vast MAJORITY of those in Christendom have accepted the scientific and social advancements arising from the 18th century Enlightenment, and EVOLVED -- intellectually and scientifically -- beyond a Medieval literalist interpretation of every word of the Bible. No self-proclaimed Christian that I know of preaches that the Bible was written DIRECTLY by "GOD", only that it was "inspired". They accept that its actual words were written by imperfect and fallible human beings. I have spoken to Muslims in many countries. I have read the Quran in its entirety more than once, something even many Muslims have not done. My experience tells me that most Muslims DO interpret the Quran literally. The very beginning of the Quran states, "This Book is not to be doubted". All "mainstream" Muslims are taught that the Quran is "uncreated" by man . . . that it was manifested in the heavenly realm by Allah, before being given to Muhammed.
It is preposterous to claim that PEACEFUL proselytising is "forcing a belief down other people's throats". It is, indeed, infantile to claim that peaceful attempts at persuasion can be separated from freedom of religion. If "Pericles" does not like what someone is trying to say to him, he can simply walk away or tell them to leave. I do not fear Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Taoists . . . for the simple reason that they have never tried to threaten or intimidate me. Muslims have.

Wobbles,
One should also note, if early Ebionite Christianity wasn't "left behind" in the early moments of church history, but had in fact prevailed, things would be radically different. Christianity would not be a religion separate from Judaism but a sect of Judaism, a sect that accepted Jewish laws, customs, and ways, a sect that practiced circumcision, observed Jewish holy days such as Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana and other festivals. Quite ironically, therefore, Islam (with its stong tie to early Judaism) is actually far more closely tied to this original Christianity.

There is a difference, however, between the Islamic and Jewish faith and this lies in their basis for belief. Judaism is based on their unique historical event of a 'divine revelation' experienced by the entire nation. Whereas Islam is based on the prophetic claims of a single individual who subsequently convinced others to follow him. Talmudic tradition says that while Abraham's son Isaac became the forefather of the Jewish people, the Islamic line is descended from Abraham's other son Ishmael.

Incidentally, what finally emerged as orthodox Christianity was a blend of various forms of early Christianity. It borrowed from (or shared with) elements of both Ebionite and Marcionite Christianity. By the fourth century the Gentile wing had thoroughly eclipsed the remnants of Jewish Christianity and became recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

One should remember too, Moses lived four centuries before Homer and eight centuries before Plato. Essentially, therefore, Christianity was not, in a certain sense, a new thing but something quite ancient. It is near certain, had Christians not been able to make a plausible case for the antiquity of their religion, it never would have succeeded in the empire - this is not to say Christianity's original member, however, didn't shed a new and dramatic light on antiquity. His 'ascension' to 'Christ' was entirely another movement - quite well beyond that of a simple but peaceful Rabbi. Christianity certainly has no reason to bear the imprint of violence, arguably, that reason does exist within Islam.

Danielle, Boaz notes the council of Jerusalem (in which the Apostles agreed on what was to be taught). St Paul's regularly returned to the centre (Jerusalem) with tithes he collected on his travels. In 1Cor15 he is explicit about his faithful preaching of the gospel he learned from the community in Jerusalem.

CS Lewis:
A most astonishing misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St Paul. It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the Gospels) and that St Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the Epistles). This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts came from the mouth of Our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St Paul. If it could be proved that St Paul altered the teaching of his Master in any way, he altered it in exactly the opposite way to that which is popularly supposed. But there is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from St Paul's. The Epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The Gospels come later. They are not 'the Gospel', the statement of the Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted 'the Gospel'. They leave out many of the 'complications' (that is, the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it. In that sense the Epistles are more primitive and more central than the Gospels -- though not, of course, than the great events which the Gospels recount. God's act (the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection) comes first: the earliest theological analysis of it comes in the Epistles: then, when the generation who had known the Lord was dying out, the Gospels were composed to provide for believers a record of the great Act and of some of the Lord's sayings."

"In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage at which you do not yet attack the King in person. You say, 'The King is all right. It is his Ministers who are wrong. They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans -- which, I'm sure, are good plans if only the Ministers would let them take effect.' And the first victory consists in beheading a few Ministers: only at a later stage do you go on and behead the King himself. In the same way, the nineteenth-century attack on St Paul was really only a stage in the revolt against Christ. Men were not ready in large numbers to attack Christ Himself. They made the normal first move -- that of attacking one of His principal ministers. Everything they disliked in Christianity was therefore attributed to St Paul. It was unfortunate that their case could not impress anyone who had really read the Gospels and the Epistles with attention: but apparently few people had, and so the first victory was won. St Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step -- the attack on the King Himself."

Martin and Sonifere.. amen :)

but specially for Wobbles...who said:

"James and the other apostles were in fact bitter enemies of Paul."

Lets contrast that with some info from Acts. 21

17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. (see chapter for more details)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=21&version=31

WOOPS... you wobbled a bit there mate :) "received us warmly" ....

They then go on to discuss the issue of 'The Law' and the fact that the FACTIONS were withIN the Jerusalem Church.. not between Paul and the Jerusalem church. It was Pauls teaching and the sub group withIN the Jerusalam Church,but not THE Jerusalem Church and NOT between Paul and James or the other leaders of it.

AAAh.. the sweet smell of 'truth' :)