Meanwhile, back to the discussion on the father of your religion, Boaz.

Even in Paul's time, there were competing versions of who Jesus was, and what he stood for.

"For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles"... For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ" 2 Corinthians 4-5, 13.

Rather gives the impression, that there were a few other "super-apostles" doing the rounds at the time, each with their own version or interpretation of the story.

Given this, it would seem to be even more suspicious, would it not, that the set of books emerging from this confusion displayed any consistency at all. Corinth itself sounded as though it were victim of an apostolic log-jam.

These different interpretations continued to vie for precedence for centuries, and it is reasonable to assume - knowing the venality and expedience of your average sinful human being - that the winner was determined by the exercise of earthly power, rather than divine guidance.

So the question remains, Boaz. Not for me, of course, since I haven't the slightest interest in the answer. But for you.

Why do you believe your version over others?

What is it, in rational terms, that convinces you that your version is superior? Or is it, as I suspect, pure emotion. You like the sound of this story best, so you stick with it.

It wouldn't be a problem if you weren't forever lecturing Muslims on the topic, using your personal selection of an interpretation of their position.

You do the same for Christian groups. I suspect, for example, that you regard Joseph Smith's story of the golden plates in the same light as the transcribings of Mohammed.

What you fail to see is the thread that runs through them all.

It's just another story.

Boaz/Polycarp,

Although I gave up on your prejudice an double standards, I couldn’t let this one go:
“What you see in the unfolding of Islam is acceptance of Mohammad's word based mainly on military advance. People pledged allegiance to him when he won victories. I don't even have to argue this, it is clear from the Muslim sources themselves”

Parking above propaganda aside, here are the facts:

1. Muslims early wars were survival wars being outnumbered by 9 to 1 and in some cases 20 to 1.
2. Most Muslims today are non-arabs (86%) and most of this number is in countries where there were no wars.
3. Fastest growing sect of Islam is Sufism (Mystic) Islam. How can that be accepted or adopted by wars?
4. Fastest growth in Muslims in the last 100 years in non-arabs even though when the culture and the faith is as week as. Why are there still more people adopting Islam today?

Boaz, faith is a matter of choice and one choses a story that makes sense to him/her. The fact that you claim to chose a story and trash everyother story can only imply that you are not happy with your choice.

So back to Pericles question: “Why do you believe your version over others?”

Well said, F_H. It's refreshing to get an actual Muslim perspective on these issues at OLO, as opposed to the often malicious and paranoid interpretations of Christian fundamentalists, closet racists and other assorted wingnuts.

Not that I blame you for your absence - OLO harbours some of the most intransigent and extreme Islamophobes I've encountered anywhere, and they can be quite nasty at times. Full credit to you for attempting to engage them at all.

FH.. welcome back. Your perspective lacks one vital ingredient.
Those choosing Islam today do so in the light of it being an established religion, they most likely do not examine closely it's early development. If they did so they would see that it happened exactly as I described.
I am one of those who looks very critically at how things begin and develop.. I look at the founder and his immediate followers.. apart from such an approach I cannot see how a person can properly evaluate any idea or movement.

PERICLES You keep referring to 'my version'...this is quite spurious.
During Pauls time there were indeed some who sought to capture the hearts of young Christians for their own reasons. One such group was the circumcision party referred to in Galatians and in the reference you cited. You would need to look at the actual issue.

The idea that there would not be competing elements in any group of people is silly. The important thing is to identify the truth and separate it from falsehood.

Paul made this abundantly clear in 1 Cor 15:3-8 "I passed on...that which I received"

he then outlines the Gospel:

Christ died-for our sins....according to the scriptures.
He was raised...according to the scriptures.

Anything competing with this is heresy. That is why Islam may be considered a heresy. Hinduism is not a heresy, it's just plain syncretism. Buddhism is not a religion it is psychology.

Our 'version' as you put it, is right/true/correct because it is the same Gospel which Paul received and passed on.

Christ died..for our sins..and was raised according to the scriptures.

To find out what errors arose, you need to see the heresies in the early church.

The Islam that terrorist practise is the only brand of Islam that deserves attention on this forum.

The fact is terrorists believe in the social governance of the all people by the enforced laws of Allah. What they practise is not a spiritual God like faith, but a social controll of people by Governance.

Daniel in the time of Israel's exhile in Babylon was able to release the people from the fear of the Dragon god by exposing the priests footprints in the dust of ashes at the altar of sacrifice. Terrorists do not operate from a freed conscience but under bondage to political leadership and ideology.

In true religion God is revealed by consistent devoted attitudes, actions and relationships that amplify LOVE. Actions that mean sacrifice even of ones life to reconcile enemies and make enemies friends.

That is the meaning of Jesus death and prayers of forgivness for his enemies even at the time of his crucifixion. Terrorists cannot accept that because it does not fit their revelation of god. That sinners must be put to death. That is the reason that to them the death of Jesus is illogical, because it frees sinners.

The apostle Paul who once murdered Christians for that reason as a result of his Damascus revelation learned the truth and changed his faith from legalist Judaism once enforcing Talmud laws to now follow Christ as a freed man. Even sacrificing his own life to live and tell that news at every opportunity. This finally meant the Judaists who persued him all his life appealing to the Roman authorities finally had him executed. That was the price of speaking and living reconciliation of sinners and even enemies. The Judaists could not accept sinners being freed from their lawless disobedience to God. So Paul at the Courts of Caesar wes executed for his teaching. That Christ the perfect one died for my sin and by affirming that I am free from the punishment due to me. This teaching is equally abhorrent to terrorists and their supporters.

Occasionaly, Boaz, your claims are nothing short of breathtaking in their arrogance and blindness.

>>Christ died-for our sins....according to the scriptures. He was raised...according to the scriptures. Anything competing with this is heresy.<<

For the one thousandth (and I'm probably not even exaggerating here) time, Boaz, anything "competing with your view" is nothing more nor less than... another view.

Another story.

Another narrative.

Your inability to even contemplate that your insight is just one amongst many is what separates you from other people.

Most of us recognize that there is at least a tiny percentage chance that we are wrong about something. Heck, I was even wrong myself once. Somewhere around 1973, as I recall.

What that acceptance provides us with, Boaz, is a humility and willingess to listen and learn that seems to have passed you by completely.

There are still people here trying to help, to lead you to this amazing place called knowledge, via the way-station called thinking.

Nobody here is trying to deny you the right to believe in anything you want. Nobody is trying to change your belief system, or to suggest that you would be better off with another.

What is missing is a reciprocal position from you.

And, of course, an acceptance that it is bad form to use your religion as a weapon against others, given that its foundations are in your head, and not supported by what we in the real world call evidence.

Think what you like, Boaz. It's one of our freedoms, to indulge in exactly that.

But you can expect resistance every time you say "Boaz right, you wrong", on the topic of religion.