The BBC et al have long tried to avoid the obvious link between Islam and Jihad, proclaiming Islam to be a religion of peace and as noted on this site, under the BBC’s ‘rules’ Muhammed would not have been a Muslim…
According to the BBC’s narrative Muhammed would not be a Muslim as his whirlwind and extremely violent campaign across the Middle East to impose Islam upon the land and its peoples has remarkable similarities to the ISIS blitz….and as we know, ISIS are not ‘real Muslims’.
But this rule doesn’t just apply to Muslims apparently…the Guardian has decided that Jesus was not a Christian…
Christianity didn’t begin until a century after the crucifixion; Jesus and all his apostles died Jews.
So Christ wasn’t a Christian? He didn’t follow his own teachings then…ones that presumably were ‘Christian’ because Christ begat them?
In this case the ‘insurgents’ are Fox News and a film made by Bill O’Reilly…..the problem apparently is that O’Reilly doesn’t relate the ‘facts’…his film just isn’t ‘history’.
And the Bible and the Koran are history?
Funny how the Guardian is suddenly fascinated by the contents of a religion and its history when the rightwing Fox News is involved but when Muslim terrorists are involved and claim religious sanction for their actions the Guardian et al suddenly lose interest in the facts and history of the religion…such as ISIS being the modern equivalent of Muhammed blitzing the Middle East and doing a bit of head chopping on the way…or that indeed the religion does obligate Muslims to go on Jihad to ‘defend’ other Muslims and their lands from the Infidel.
Your typical lefty prat is quite happy to take sanctuary in this country enjoying its freedoms and bountiful fruits- BUT whilst undermining every tradition that has brought this freedom. But trust me, if Isis ever invaded this country the craven Guardian-reading Ryvita eaters would hide behind the very soldiers that they go out into the streets to protest against.
I despise the Cultural Marxists; but they’re growing like pond algae. The disgusting Scottish Nazi Party and the vile Irish Republican scum are infiltrating the various Socialist movements across the UK to make matters worse; British patriots really are being attacked on all sides. What with the family unit and the bedrock of our Christian heritage being eradicated by lefty assortments that include Muslim fanatics, cross-dressing feminists and tambourine shaking occupy squatters it’ll be one hell of a fight to save what’s left of this country.
Here at zee BBC, ve consider Christ to be the illegitimate son of a jewish whore and there is no god but allah
Disgusting Sikh’ Getting in the way of a pack of Muslims throwing punches. Surely the BBC will take up this case of blatant “Islamophobia”..
Have you noticed that Muslim extremists always seem to attack in groups? They never fight by themselves…. they do, however, blow themselves up by themselves.
Were Christ and His apostles Christians? His apostles certainly were, but Christ wasn’t. After all, you couldn’t expect Him to worship Himself.
When I argued on here that Christ was not a Jew, but the first Christian, there wasn’t one of you who agreed with me ! Make up your minds because you can’t argue a point from both sides when it suits!
Christ was a Jew, clearly stated in the Gospels (I believe particularly in Matthew), and I’m sure he only intended to reform the bad practices of the priests of the time and bring the people back to what he perceived to be the right way to behave. His followers were likewise Jews.
The first Christians were the ones who tried to distance themselves from the Jews who tried to revolt against Roman rule (c66-71 AD) as the Romans were coming down harshly on any they suspected of involvement in the insurrection. These early Christians took the teachings of Jesus (as written down by people well after he died) and made that the centrepoint of the new religion to distance themselves from the Jews, although retaining the Jewish Bible as their “Old Testament”.
My reading of the Bible, is that Jesus was before the creation of the universe. He is one with God.
It certainly is the case that God became flesh in the person of Jesus, and was “born” to Jewish parents. But that does not make Jesus, the immortal Godhead, to be Jewish.
Thats my simple view. I just have no other option, that despite how bleak the situation looks for Western civilisation, and Britain in particular, faith in God will see us through
Churchill – Religion ( The Christian faith), has been the bedrock in the life of the British people, upon which they have built their hopes, and cast their cares.
‘there wasn’t one of you who agreed with me’
Can happen.
Silence can mean a few things, often, ‘you’ know.
Well as a atheist why would I agree that someone I don’t believe existed chose one path or another ? sorry
Christ was born a Jew, however after his baptism and the descending of the Dove and acknowledgement by God he became the first Christian.
He must have accepted who he was, and his destiny, therefore he was a Christian!
Well, only if you believe in God and descending doves etc. For all intents and purposes he was a Jew. The term Christian, or whatever its origin in Aramaic was originally a term of derision applied to the later followers of his teachings.
Although other commenters may disagree, I’m not sure this blog should be diverted to discuss theology. However, if we are, then FWIW and IMHO I don’t consider that Jesus was a Christian, Buddha was a Buddhist or Mohammed was a Moslem: and while we’re on the subject it’s more than probable that Moses – if he actually existed – was likely an Egyptian and not a Hebrew. However, again IMHO, doubtless Jesus was “Christian” if not a Christian. I doubt, for instance, that Jesus actually believed in the Trinity and I consider that he would have been surprised that the vast majority of his (male) followers might not be circumcised. Similarly the Buddha was “Buddhist” in his beliefs since that’s what he lived and taught. But again, I think he would have been surprised (and appalled) that he has become – effectively – an object of worship rather than just an exemplar and teacher of his spiritual insights.
OTOH, to me, the likelihood that Mohammed was a charlatan and the L Ron Hubbard of 7th century Arabia, is strengthened by the (non-)coincidence that at the time of their spiritual maturity Jesus, Buddha and Moses were unmarried or had rejected marriage. None, I believe, created nor left direct descendants to fight (like the Milibands and the Moslems) over the spiritual and material legacy of their illustrious ancestor. Certainly factional Christianity has fought fiercely down the centuries but not on the very materialist basis (dressed up as a religious dispute) that Wayne or Waynetta is the genuine heir to Christ’s legacy because Jesus favoured one of his children over another. Nor do I believe that Jesus – or Buddha or Moses – viewed their spiritual legacies as the creation of a family business although Aaron (Moses’ brother) elbowed his way into providing that his descendants would become the hereditary priests of Israel.
It seems to me that the many atrocities committed by followers of the major religions down the centuries has, in the cases of Christianity and Buddhism, been very much counter to the teaching and practice of their founders. Islam, unfortunately, is surely following the example and words of its founder – and his interpreters – in the deceit and violence endemic in the Religion of Peace. Denial of this – or just a refusal to discuss it – by those commentators chosen to write/speak on such things by the BBC and the Guardian is in whose interest exactly? Evidently it favours Labour and its antisemitic allies of the left because the followers of the Religion of Peace will vociferously – and violently – oppose any individual or party denying the wonder and benignity of Islam. Labour has quite deliberately created an Islamic fifth column in the UK and has been dangerously indulgent towards its manifestations of corruption and criminality. The least it (and the BBC/Guardian) expect in return from Moslems is support for Labour at the polls.
The New Testament of the Bible rejects the “eye for an eye” vengeance of the Old.
By contrast, the later sections of the Koran (Medina) advocate greater violence than the earlier Mecca sections.
The Bible has the parable of the Good Samaritan. Does the Koran have the Sura of the Good Jew or the Good Christian ?
I have been taught all my life by Christians that Christ was a Jew. Why would they do so if he wasn’t?
Christ died as King of the Jews or did you miss your bible classes?
The Guardian is quite correct as you can easily check for yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
Great chunks of the New Testament make no sense if Jesus was not Jewish. Why bother driving the money lenders from the Temple? Why argue with the elders? What was the point of Jesus the Messiah, foretold by the prophets, if he wasn’t Jewish? What did it matter if the Jews rejected him?
The Catholics claim Christianity is the completed form of the Jewish religion and Jesus was both ethnically Jewish and religiously (the true version) Jewish.
If Christians were currently chopping of heads; destroying religious artifacts; conquering land to create the Kingdom of God — all the while while quoting scripture to justify those actions it would be a reasonable question whether they were really acting as the Bible directs. At the moment it is the Muslims of IS and fellow travellors who doing that.