The main difference is in the footnotes and commentary which accompanies it.

That is what the article is saying. I haven’t got a copy myself.

They are being deceived.

The Muslim Brotherhood is targeting our politicians.

[blog.markdurie.com]

Btw, anything by Mark Durie is worth reading. His book “The Third Choice” is very good.

Both the Quran and the Jewish Talmud are supremacist documents--espousing subjugation of all others. The Christian New Testament does not do so. Evil has been done in the name of all religions, but Christians are not able to find anywhere their Holy Book tells them to do so, while it is repeatedly prescribed for followers of the other two books.

@MarPep Christianity (the NT in the Bible) is not a unique religion separate from the other two Abrahamic religions, nor is it a religion of peace as some believe it is. Based on my observations over the years, I estimate roughly 82% of the adult American population have not read all the books in both the old and new testaments, and I suspect this is why the myth of Christianity being a religion of peace is still being spread around. To save me the time of typing out all the questionable parts in the NT, here is a good start- [skepticsannotatedbible.com]

Which documents some of the less than shining parts in the NT. In particular the most disturbing passage is one where Jesus states that he did come to send peace, but a sword (to divide families). Most disturbing indeed. Also, Jesus claimed to uphold the old laws, meaning the laws of Moses which some of them were extremely violent, and he had no problem with the cruel punishments carried out in the OT. Examples of evil are in the NT, if one reads the entire NT with an open mind that is...

@SpikeTalon Christ was surely speaking figuratively when he said that. No where does the NT instruct followers to kill or injure or subject anyone to hatred or domination--"Pray for those who spitefully use you" "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and hundreds of other such instructions do exist.
However---
The Talmud and the Quran are full of instructions to dominate, and/or kill, all others. The only OT instructions I personally believe in is the first version of the Ten Commandments. Certainly there are many who proclaim to be Christians and think the entire OT was handed down by God---but many also do not.

The God spoken of by Jesus is the Spirit of Truth and Love, not the vengeful figure of Allah or of OT Jehovah,Yahweh, El, Adonai, Jealous, etc.

@MarPep The god spoken of by Jesus is the same god of the OT, as Jesus was a Jewish man, and Christianity is dependent on the writings in the OT. The foundation for Christianity is the creation story in Genesis, and Christ came to uphold the laws of the OT, or so he claimed. Please read the link I supplied in the previous comment very carefully. One example off the top of my head is where Jesus suggests cutting off your hands if they assist you in committing sin(s), which is appalling albeit disturbing. Jesus did not have to specifically/individually mention or not about certain violent practices in order for him to promote such, as all he had to do was say he came to uphold the old laws, which sums up the religion Judaism.

@SpikeTalon Nope on several accounts. "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." This is a simile to toss out one's sins--no matter how much you enjoy them. An eye can not offend its owner. Jesus was a Galilean Judahite whose ministry was against the Pharisaic/Babylonian "Tradition of the Elders" (later theTalmud). The Jews in control of Judea (under the Romans) from 60 BC till 70 AD were not even Israelites, but were the Idumean converts of Antipas and Herod the Great and his descendants.

@MarPep Still, the symbolic suggestion is enough to at least cause confusion. It would have been just as easy for him to say then to toss out your sins instead of the other description. There are some people out there who would take such at face value. As for the last part of your comment, that much is not known for certain as there is debate over his actual existence, but that's a whole other story...

@SpikeTalon Many of us have been misled to believe that Old Testament "Masoretic Law"(Law of Moses) is all that Judaism is. The Pre-Babylonian-captivity Israelite religion certainly contained some or all of what is now called the Torah. However, a synthetic religion developed in Babylon, with other religions, and a set of far more laws, traditions, and hierarchy than in the pre-Babylonian Torah was produced. We may never know what exactly constituted the pre-captivity Torah. I suspect that that was known in the great learning centers like Alexandria, Egypt during the time of Jesus--and perhaps Jesus was exposed to them during his youth in Egypt. We can't know for certain. There is a branch of Judaism that only accepts Torah, but the rest of Tanakh(prophets and writings) and Talmud are parts of mainstream Judaism.

@SpikeTalon Some people even then confused his allegories, parables, and similes with actual instructions or accurate descriptions. Children and unlearned folks tend to do that quite a lot--psychologists call it "concrete thinking."

@MarPep Okay, but I wasn't strictly referring to just the laws of Moses, all the books that comprise the OT make up the religion of Judaism. Alot of mysteries there as you suggested, we may never know about all the writings that influenced the books of the OT.

@MarPep I don't think what Jesus said should ever be taken at face value, and yes he did speak in parables. For as important as he was supposed to be, one would still think he certainly could have been more clear on his instructions...

@SpikeTalon If he was any more "clear", they would have killed him sooner. He had a mission to complete.

@MarPep He could have been more private in his approach, stay somewhat underground so to speak...

@SpikeTalon So you are willing to share your advice to the Son of God--how beneficent of you.

@MarPep I know... I'm generous in that manner...

@CanuckAmok It’s particular doctrines within religions which is the problem, not the religions themselves.

Any belief is dangerous, if the person who holds the belief thinks that those who differ with him or her should not be able to express their views in public.