Frank it really has to do with the Law and where the Authority is delegated. In the strictest Jewish sense, who has the Keys.

Judiasm lays claim to the Law under Moses. Christianity, oddly enough maintains it's claim under the Law by both Melchezedek and Jesus, who is really still representative of the Mosaic covenant though the prevailing thought is that he alone bears the covenant of Moses. This is why you see Jesus advocating the Oral Law at the time because the priests of the Temple were manipulating it to suit the greed in their hearts.

Obviously Jesus was not the only one advocating for more transparency regarding the Oral law because history goes to show that the Oral Law was written down shortly after the destruction of the temple some forty to fifty years after Christ.

The fact remains that Abraham himself was not a priest of any the sort and he consulted with Melchezedek in order to gain understanding of the Law. And what of Ishmael? Was he a priest of any sort? Judiasm follows a set line of prophets and it was only until after the temple was detroyed that the line was broken, likewise Christianity follows apostolicly. Islam has no apostolic following, it cannot prove that authority has been delegated to it because there is no line of succession from Ishmael onward. Mohammed cleverly addresses this when he says "who are you to say what God wills." But the fact remains that there is very little authority in the priestly sense and both you and I know according to Jewish and Christian customs that the Priesthood is the mechanism by which authority is delegated.

jjanecka wrote:

... Yeah... We argue with each other for years and you never take anything I say at face value.... I make a sarcastic comment about Islam and you're going to take it as gospel.

... Smh

victor809 wrote:

simplified, but Islam traces itself back to the OT, Abraham begat Ishmail who was driven away, yet holds the birthright, in Muslim belief, over Isaac...through the NT and then to what they believe is the correct (second) rewrite/third edition. Allah is the name of God to them in their language(s), not a second God, but the God of the Old Testament as well.

Odd that many Americans have far less trouble accepting LDS adherents as a real religious group even though they follow the third rewrite/fourth book which promises yet another reward. And I know there are not many, if any, mass murdering Mormans (mormen?) so I am not talking about lack of what we see as terrorists. I'm just saying Americans by and large do not question if the religion itself is "accredited" as if to skip over the third link from the OT to the fourth.

My tribe feels the first edition (prequel?) was perfect, but that will never sell here...and we do not recruit. HA!

frankj1 wrote:

I had a feeling I'd have to do some searching after your answer...thanks

frankj1 wrote: