Is the Law binding today??? [Archive]

moose7237

July 22nd 2007, 04:58 AM

Hello and Peace be to all,

I was just interested to know, and I am quite sure this has been brought up quite commonly to Christians, if they are really still bound to the Law of Moses. From what I can see, I believe it should be so. Because in the OT in order for God to love the people, they had to follow his commandments, which many people may know were not so easy. There were more then just 10 commandments from God. After the death of Jesus, this law was no longer in effect, rather God loved people not by following his commandments but he loved them based on if they believed that Jesus died and resurrected. In my opinion, I would state this as an injustice. For the Jews had to work hard to keep the law, and the person that is Christian needs only faith and not the commandments that were given in the Torah. But does God in the OT really make this injustice and are Christians really supposed to be under the law today??? This is my question to all Christians and I would seek your help in interpreting the following verses:

Deu. 7:9-12

9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. 10 But
those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction;
he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

11 Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.

12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers.

Here it seems like the covenant of love, is based on works. If one obeys God's command he is loved by God, please correct me if I am wrong here. The fact here, is that God wanted this covenant followed for 1000 generations. If one knows something about a generation its defined amount is no less than 10 years. So shouldn't one be under this covenant for that long??? That would meant that even after the death of Jesus and until today that covenant is still in effect according to the word of God.

As a matter of fact, God did say that those who did not follow the Law are cursed.

Deuteronomy 27:26
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.

Now I read Galations 3:10 and it seems like there was a contradiction here:

10For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "(N)CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."

Here Paul is saying that the people that are under the works of the law are cursed, yet the verse he quoted states the opposite. It states those who are NOT of the law are the cursed ones, not the ones who are under it. For the ones that are under the law according to God are under the Covenant of Love.

Now lets see Galations 3:13

13Christ (R)redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "(S)CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON (T)A TREE"--

Now Here there is a problem. Firstly, Jesus did not hang on a tree, secondly in order to qualify for a hanging on a tree you must have performed a capital offense, which means you must have sinned. But Jesus never did Sin, ergo, how can he qualify for this hanging?

Deu. 21:22-23

22"If a man has committed a sin (P)worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree,

23(Q)his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for (R)he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you (S)do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

As I mentioned above, in order to be hanged upon a tree, you must have sinned a sin worthy of death, yet Jesus never committed any sins how can he qualify for hanging? Now lets say that they made a mistake, which they did, is Jesus still cursed? I would say not, because in reality Jesus never made they sin, the Jews thought he did, but according to God and Christian theology he never sinned ergo how can he become a curse, because to become a curse you need to have sinned first. So it seems like Jesus becoming a curse to relive people of the law is not a correct understanding to me. But going back, God stated that those who were loved by him are those who follow his commandments in which this covenant is supposed to be for 1000 Generations. Those who are not under the law are cursed.

I would like to quote these 2 verses:

For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Exodus 20: 5,6

But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children's children, to such as keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them. Psalm 103 17-18

Here is a good site on this topic:

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/law_stands.htm

Look forward to your responses, excuse me if I am late in my responses, I am quite busy as of late. Take care All.

MaxVel

July 23rd 2007, 06:28 AM

Hi moose -

Just a quick reply on one point:

Hello and Peace be to all,

I was just interested to know, and I am quite sure this has been brought up quite commonly to Christians, if they are really still bound to the Law of Moses. From what I can see, I believe it should be so. Because in the OT in order for God to love the people, they had to follow his commandments, which many people may know were not so easy. There were more then just 10 commandments from God. After the death of Jesus, this law was no longer in effect, rather God loved people not by following his commandments but he loved them based on if they believed that Jesus died and resurrected. In my opinion, I would state this as an injustice. For the Jews had to work hard to keep the law, and the person that is Christian needs only faith and not the commandments that were given in the Torah. But does God in the OT really make this injustice and are Christians really supposed to be under the law today??? This is my question to all Christians and I would seek your help in interpreting the following verses:

Deu. 7:9-12

9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. 10 But
those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction;
he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

11 Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.

12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers.

Here it seems like the covenant of love, is based on works. If one obeys God's command he is loved by God, please correct me if I am wrong here. The fact here, is that God wanted this covenant followed for 1000 generations. If one knows something about a generation its defined amount is no less than 10 years. So shouldn't one be under this covenant for that long??? That would meant that even after the death of Jesus and until today that covenant is still in effect according to the word of God.

As a matter of fact, God did say that those who did not follow the Law are cursed.

Deuteronomy 27:26
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.

Now I read Galations 3:10 and it seems like there was a contradiction here:

10For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "(N)CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."

Here Paul is saying that the people that are under the works of the law are cursed,

I read Paul as saying that those who do not abide by the Law are cursed. That is, he is saying that those who do not do everything required by the Law are guilty of breaking it, and are therefore under the associated curses.

yet the verse he quoted states the opposite. It states those who are NOT of the law are the cursed ones, not the ones who are under it.

The ones that do not manage to always act according to the Law are cursed.

For the ones that are under the law according to God are under the Covenant of Love.

Now lets see Galations 3:13

13Christ (R)redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "(S)CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON (T)A TREE"--

Now Here there is a problem. Firstly, Jesus did not hang on a tree, secondly in order to qualify for a hanging on a tree you must have performed a capital offense, which means you must have sinned. But Jesus never did Sin, ergo, how can he qualify for this hanging?

Deu. 21:22-23

22"If a man has committed a sin (P)worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree,

23(Q)his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for (R)he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you (S)do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

As I mentioned above, in order to be hanged upon a tree, you must have sinned a sin worthy of death, yet Jesus never committed any sins how can he qualify for hanging? Now lets say that they made a mistake, which they did, is Jesus still cursed? I would say not, because in reality Jesus never made they sin, the Jews thought he did, but according to God and Christian theology he never sinned ergo how can he become a curse, because to become a curse you need to have sinned first. So it seems like Jesus becoming a curse to relive people of the law is not a correct understanding to me.

So Paul (an acknowledged Jewish expert in the Law) got it wrong???

But going back, God stated that those who were loved by him are those who follow his commandments in which this covenant is supposed to be for 1000 Generations. Those who are not under the law are cursed.

I would like to quote these 2 verses:

For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Exodus 20: 5,6

But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children's children, to such as keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them. Psalm 103 17-18

Here is a good site on this topic:

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/law_stands.htm

Look forward to your responses, excuse me if I am late in my responses, I am quite busy as of late. Take care All.

To (briefly) address your topic: Are we obligated to keep the Law of Moses today?

If we look at how the Law came about, the Israelite people were given the choice of accepting or declining the conditions of the Law, it's blessings and cursings. As later on also were any Gentiles who wanted to become part of that Covenant. Thus there ware (and are) people who chose to enter into that Covenant (and thus are obliged to keep the Law) and also people who chose not to enter into that Covenant (and are not obliged to keep the Law). A main purpose of the Covenant was to show God's expectations for the behaviour of righteous people.

Those entering that Covenant are engaging to be righteous by virtue of their actions - perfectly keeping God's Law.

Christians are righteous by virtue of faith in Jesus Christ, apart from their 'good works'. Therefore Christians are obliged to keep only what Jesus commanded them to keep.

moose7237

July 23rd 2007, 01:18 PM

Hi moose -

Just a quick reply on one point:

I read Paul as saying that those who do not abide by the Law are cursed. That is, he is saying that those who do not do everything required by the Law are guilty of breaking it, and are therefore under the associated curses.

Hello and Peace be to you Max,

How can we call that a curse??? According to God, if you follow his commandments you are loved by him. And in one verse he says that he is merciful to those who follow his law. Mercy is given to people who are not perfect. God knows we can't follow all his rules at all times, but that doesn't mean we give up, we try and when you sin you repent, for God says his mercy is from everlasting to everlasting. God states that those who are not under the law are cursed.

The ones that do not manage to always act according to the Law are cursed.

That's not what God states. God states that he is merciful. If one can follow the law perfectly he does not need God's mercy. But God know that no one can do that, and that is why he said he is merciful, because he forgives people when they sin.

So Paul (an acknowledged Jewish expert in the Law) got it wrong???

Actually, I wouldn't call him an expert. There are verses he did misinterpret, in Romans 3, I believe, it seems like he took verses out of context completely. Go to the site that I have provided for more information. I do think he did get it wrong if he implied that Jesus was hung on a tree. From what I know, and as some have been saying that crucifixion is not mentioned during the time of Moses, so hanging on a tree must mean just that, I don't think its metaphorical for crucifixion.

To (briefly) address your topic: Are we obligated to keep the Law of Moses today?

If we look at how the Law came about, the Israelite people were given the choice of accepting or declining the conditions of the Law, it's blessings and cursings. As later on also were any Gentiles who wanted to become part of that Covenant. Thus there ware (and are) people who chose to enter into that Covenant (and thus are obliged to keep the Law) and also people who chose not to enter into that Covenant (and are not obliged to keep the Law). A main purpose of the Covenant was to show God's expectations for the behaviour of righteous people.

Those entering that Covenant are engaging to be righteous by virtue of their actions - perfectly keeping God's Law.

Christians are righteous by virtue of faith in Jesus Christ, apart from their 'good works'. Therefore Christians are obliged to keep only what Jesus commanded them to keep.

You see, that's where I see the unfairness of it all. God states that the covenant of love is to folloow his commandments, that's how to become righteous. Christianity states that you need only faith in Jesus to be righteous. One group has to work and follow laws and the other needs faith to achieve the same goal. It doesn't seem right. Now, I do think that the law still is binding today because God stated that this covenant is for 1000 generations. Those who are not under the law are cursed. And where in the bible is Jesus ever mentioned, besides Paul's saying, that he would become a curse for the people??? I have never seen that supported anywhere nor have I seen the apostles or Jesus himself make such a claim.

Narnian

July 24th 2007, 05:27 AM

"Love is the fulfillment of the law" Rom 13:10

How can we call that a curse???

Because noone can live up to it; therefore we are all cursed. All humans are imperfect and are sinners, therefore noone is saved through the oppressive demands of Old Law.

Paul explains it in this verse:

Gal 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; 12 but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree" -- 14 that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 To give a human example, brethren: no one annuls even a man's will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified.

Abraham did not follow or speak about The Law, and Paul points out there was a 430 gap until Moses aquired it. Abraham was saved by faith, not Law. So should we all be.

Paul continues: .... 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

and here Paul explains how rules and laws just make people want to sin:

Rom 7 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

Rules and laws are for the immature;

Heb 5:13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Ultimately The Law distracts you from the real issue: salvation through grace alone.

Abelard

July 24th 2007, 11:01 AM

My opinion is God's law is binding but Moses' isn't.

Now, will someone please pass the shrimp?

Narnian

July 24th 2007, 11:05 AM

Before Moose gets in, I will ask you (since I like your answers) .... "what IS God's law"? ....

mastralvarado

July 24th 2007, 11:35 AM

"Love is the fulfillment of the law" Rom 13:10
Because noone can live up to it; therefore we are all cursed. All humans are imperfect and are sinners, therefore noone is saved through the oppressive demands of Old Law.

Is this confirmed in heaven?

Paul explains it in this verse:
Gal 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; 12 but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree" -- 14 that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 To give a human example, brethren: no one annuls even a man's will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified.

Determinism is officially pwned by Paul.

Abraham did not follow or speak about The Law, and Paul points out there was a 430 gap until Moses aquired it. Abraham was saved by faith, not Law. So should we all be.

Is this confirmed in heaven?

Paul continues: .... 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

So the prophecies were all fullfilled through Christ? Yeah, :lol: riiiiight :teeth:

and here Paul explains how rules and laws just make people want to sin:

Rom 7 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

Sin=overindulgence • law=martial • commandment=ruling. See I can change the meaning of things too.

Rules and laws are for the immature;

Heb 5:13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Ultimately The Law distracts you from the real issue: salvation through grace alone.
Could this be the 'grace' that makes one confirmed to be written in the book of life?

moose7237

July 24th 2007, 11:54 AM

"Love is the fulfillment of the law" Rom 13:10

Because noone can live up to it; therefore we are all cursed. All humans are imperfect and are sinners, therefore noone is saved through the oppressive demands of Old Law.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

To God love is not fulfillment of the law. Please do read my original article.

This is what God defines as the covenant of love:

Deu. 7:9-12

9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. 10 But
those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction;
he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

11 Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.

12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers.

So, if by love, Paul meant that you have to follow the law then yes that is how you will be loved. And no one is saved by the law??? Really???

For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Exodus 20: 5,6

But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children's children, to such as keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them. Psalm 10317-18

It looks like God gives mercy to those who follow his law. Paul contradicted himself in Galations 3:10. He says those under the law are cursed and then he quotes a verse that states those NOT under the law are cursed. According to God those not under the law are cursed.
Paul explains it in this verse:

Gal 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; 12 but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree" -- 14 that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 To give a human example, brethren: no one annuls even a man's will, or adds to it, once it has been ratified.

Paul states that through faith a man is righteous, but God states otherwise:

Ezekiel 18:9
9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign LORD.

Abraham did not follow or speak about The Law, and Paul points out there was a 430 gap until Moses aquired it. Abraham was saved by faith, not Law. So should we all be.

This is false. God himself states that Nations were blessed because Abraham followed God's laws:

Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; BECAUSE Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My Laws." Genesis 26:3-5

Paul continues: .... 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

and here Paul explains how rules and laws just make people want to sin:

Rom 7 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

Actually, Paul states that everything is permissible. Ergo, he can sin with or without the law.

Please do refute my main OP which states that the Law is still binding today.

moose7237

July 24th 2007, 11:55 AM

My opinion is God's law is binding but Moses' isn't.

Now, will someone please pass the shrimp?

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

The law of Moses is God's Law.

Narnian

July 24th 2007, 09:36 PM

So, if by love, Paul meant that you have to follow the law then yes that is how you will be loved.

Wrong - love goes in many directions. First and foremost you are loved by God just as you as you. Secondly you respond to this love by loving him back and loving others, including your enemies. Love has nothing to do with not eating a ham sandwich or washing or refraining from frying an egg on a Saturday, doing pilgrimages or going thru a set prayer sequence. It is what is in your heart.

In fact, it's MUCH easier to follow a set of rules that change you externally than it is to be transformed internally. I think that is part of the reason why muslims - and others - fight Christianity so much. They resist that transformation, because it has to do with letting go of one's ego. It's much easier to avoid eating a ham sandwich .... than have to face one's lack of love within.

And no one is saved by the law??? Really???

For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. Exodus 20: 5,6

Go to Wiki and read up on the New Covenants. I have already explained it to you, but don't like to repeat myself.

moose7237

July 24th 2007, 09:58 PM

Wrong - love goes in many directions. First and foremost you are loved by God just as you as you. Secondly you respond to this love by loving him back and loving others, including your enemies. Love has nothing to do with not eating a ham sandwich or washing or refraining from frying an egg on a Saturday. It is what is in your heart.

In fact, it's MUCH easier to follow a set of rules that change you externally than it is to be transformed internally. I think that is part of the reason why muslims - and others - fight Christianity so much. They resist that transformation, because it has to do with letting go of one's ego. It's much easier to avoid eating a ham sandwich .... than have to face one's lack of love within.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

No, there are people that are not loved by God. They are the ones that will suffer in hell. OR God will make them suffer in this world as you believe that there is no hell. What better way to prove your love to God, then by showing him that you want to follow his rules he set for you??? I look at it like a marriage. If a man tells his wife he loves her by words and does nothing she tells him to do, for example like mowing the lawn, taking out the garbage etc, but he just says he loves her, then really its empty love. There is no love, he has to prove it to her. Same thing with our connection to God, he loves us and he proves it to us and we should return the favor by following his law. For he stated, those who are not under the law are cursed. And it did at least apply to the Jews before Jesus. Your problem Narnian, is that you speak out of emotion and not facts. Like you said, in the Islam forum, you are dumb if you don't know that you are created out of water. How many people would know something like that??? Not me that's for sure.

Go to Wiki and read up on the New Covenants. I have already explained it to you, but don't like to repeat myself.

Give me the link to the thread you answered it in, so I can re-read your response please. In the meantime, anyone like to take on my OP???

Narnian

July 24th 2007, 10:22 PM

No, there are people that are not loved by God.

You are talking about the Islamic Allah, not The Father. God - the Father - IS love, so how can he not love everyone?

1Jo 4:19 - We love because (God) first loved us.

1Jo 4:8 - Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.

They are the ones that will suffer in hell.

They are the one's God loves most. He does not want them to suffer, but they chose a destiny of misery by separating themselves from His love - his unconditional love.

What better way to prove your love to God, then by showing him that you want to follow his rules he set for you???

God wants honesty, not blind obedience.

I look at it like a marriage. If a man tells his wife he loves her by words and does nothing she tells him to do, for example like mowing the lawn, taking out the garbage etc, but he just says he loves her, then really its empty love.

That love is gained through transformation of one's heart, by maturity and through insight .... not from reading a list of rules and following them. I would prefer my husband to do things for me from a place of overflowing love, rather than "shoulds" and shouldn'ts he reads in a book.

There is no love, he has to prove it to her. Same thing with our connection to God, he loves us and he proves it to us and we should return the favor by following his law.

God is not in need proof of your love - he already knows your heart; you can't fool God into thinking you love him by doing prayers and Hajs and saying no to ham sandwiches. God is much greater than that and he knows more about you and what you really think and feel, than you know yourself.

Give me the link to the thread you answered it in, so I can re-read your response please. In the meantime, anyone like to take on my OP???

I've never had any luck with doing searches in this forum. But if you go to this link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant you can read an overview. It has been established doctrine since 500BC.

moose7237

July 25th 2007, 02:42 AM

You are talking about the Islamic Allah, not The Father. God - the Father - IS love, so how can he not love everyone?

1Jo 4:19 - We love because (God) first loved us.

1Jo 4:8 - Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Where was the love when he forsook Jesus and left him to die??? There is no love in that. If he was truly loving, he would have forgiven Israel for their sins and all of man for that matter and not have had Jesus tortured. If the Father really does love all, then you can help explain why Africa is in such poverty. I always asked myself this question: Why didn't God have me born as a baby in Africa, where I would be exposed to diseases so easily and my life span is cut so short and my parents and I starve. Do you call this love??? I don't even think you believe in heaven Narnian, so after they die, where is the love???

Allah is the truly just. From what we see in our point of view for a poor person, they will be dealt with justly. On the 10th of Ashura, people cry for Imam Hussein for sacrificing himself to save the community and Islam from the oppression of Yazid, he took it as an honor to please his lord and give his life to his creator. You think Allah will judge him harshly??? Let that be Allah's choice. When a baby dies, it is a tragedy, but according to the Islamic faith he is to go to heaven, so really it is not a tragedy, but a gift.

1 John, completely contradicts God's love covenant in the OT that lasts for 1000 generations, meaning it is supposed to be in effect today. If laws are so meaningless to you, why did God himself say that NATIONS were blessed because Abraham obeys laws and commandments??? Think about this Narnian, the obedience of one man to follow the law results in nations being blessed by God.

They are the one's God loves most. He does not want them to suffer, but they chose a destiny of misery by separating themselves from His love - his unconditional love.

Yes, and God is the one who gives them this misery in Hell. They chose the fate for themselves. There is no love in punishment. Allah does not want people to suffer, but they choose their fate.

God wants honesty, not blind obedience.

Look at the obedience God wants, its makes logical sense. Do not steal, do not commit adultery, Do not drink alcohol, etc. What good is honesty if you are an evil person? For example I can say "I honestly am a thief, since I am honest about this, does God love me?"

That love is gained through transformation of one's heart, by maturity and through insight .... not from reading a list of rules and following them. I would prefer my husband to do things for me from a place of overflowing love, rather than "shoulds" and shouldn'ts he reads in a book.

In order for your heart to be transformed you need to follow rules. These rules are morally sound, I don't know why you are arguing for people to be moral. Say a person wants to stop commiting adultery, he needs to transform his heart by following a law of not committing adultery anymore. Say a person does not want to drink anymore, in order for his heart to be transformed he needs to follow a law that states "do not drink". The point about marriage is the whole Pauline doctrine. You state I love you, you can believe it in your heart as well, but when your spouse asks a favor of you, you don't want to do it, you don't want to prove your love to her. I can say "I love you" but without showing it, then really its a phony statement.

God is not in need proof of your love - he already knows your heart; you can't fool God into thinking you love him by doing prayers and Hajs and saying no to ham sandwiches. God is much greater than that and he knows more about you and what you really think and feel, than you know yourself.

Yes, and if you don't follow his rules, then he knows your heart does not love him. Your tongue may testify it, but your actions do not show it. You have heard the saying "you can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?" By doing prayers and Haj, that in itself makes you more spiritual and in return proves that you love him by doing what he asks of you to do. I agree that God knows more about me then I do. Going to Haj especially, Inshallah Allah grants me and my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters to get the opportunity one day to visit this great site and perform our pilgrimage, will get you more spiritual as all of my muslim brothers and sisters have shared their experiences with me about it.

I've never had any luck with doing searches in this forum. But if you go to this link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant you can read an overview. It has been established doctrine since 500BC.

As I have stated, which, you Narnian, have not even touched yet, is anyone going to refute my OP???

Here is the most challenging verse:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." — Jeremiah 31:31-34 KJV [

Now if God of the bible is omniscient and he knows he will make a new covenant with Israel, why did he say that the covenant mentioned in Deuteronomy 7:9-12 would be for 1000 generations? Either this is an abrogation, or it could be a lie on the sense that it would not last for 1000 generations. Help explaining this anyone? Also, the great thing about this passage is that it proves that God does not need a sacrifice in order to forgive sins, so he could have forgiven the people, but decided to have Jesus tortured and humiliated instead. Please visit the thread entitled "God's injustice toward's Jesus: Crucifxion" in the unorthodox theology forum. Take care All!

Narnian

July 25th 2007, 04:30 AM

Where was the love when he forsook Jesus and left him to die???

I have answered that one in previous threads. Perhaps another member would like to give their take on this question.

Why didn't God have me born as a baby in Africa, where I would be exposed to diseases so easily and my life span is cut so short and my parents and I starve.

That is one of those questions that theologians and philosophers have pondered over for centuries. My own take on this matter is that God is not fully Omnipotent until the End Times, when good finally conquers evil. But he is there in spirit with whoever suffers. This is the view of theologians such as Alfred Whitehead and Karl Barth. See here for more details; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

What good is honesty if you are an evil person? For example I can say "I honestly am a thief, since I am honest about this, does God love me?"

:lol: an honest thief? Bit of an oxymoron, no?

Say a person does not want to drink anymore, in order for his heart to be transformed he needs to follow a law that states "do not drink".

A perfect example of how a rule does NOT work. An alcoholic has a phsycical addiction and allergic reaction to alcohol, and he needs medication and psychological help to stop drinking. The most successful program is AA which starts not with telling you to stop, but by guiding the person to have a total transformation, beginning with repentence. See The Twelve Steps of AA.

Like the majority of people, I am lucky that I don't have an allergy or addiction to alcohol, and I can enjoy my red wine, which is also good for you in moderation. :teeth:

NT 1Titus 5:23 - Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine

Going to Haj especially, Inshallah Allah grants me and my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters to get the opportunity one day to visit this great site and perform our pilgrimage, will get you more spiritual as all of my muslim brothers and sisters have shared their experiences with me about it.

Mass hysteria, neurotransmitters, endorphins and hormones; that's all it is. It fools you into thinking it was a spiritual experience.

You can get the same thing if you went to the gym and did aeroboxing or climbing a mountain.

You do not need to exhaust yourself, go fast, run up and down, make noise, run around a black box or cry on top of a mountain to receive God

God comes to you in the quietest and most normal of settings. Just washing the dishes or watering the garden and in the quiet of your heart he is there. He comes to you when you let go of striving, when you let go of struggle, of any sort of jihad, when you realise that nothing you can do, nothing you can do about self improvement can lead to God extending his Grace and Love to you. But your strivings and struggles and noise only keep him outside, because only when you totally surrender and admit your total inability to live up to Allah's demands - in that space; God comes to you for the first time.

It happened to me like that. :blush:

Now if God of the bible is omniscient and he knows he will make a new covenant with Israel, why did he say that the covenant mentioned in Deuteronomy 7:9-12

You are taking it all WAY too literally. I'm not a literalist and I don't believe that at least half - if not all - the stories of the OT were factually true. I do not believe that God wrote it either, so whatever is said there can be debated and measured up to fit the "God is Love".

john 5 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form, 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent. 39 "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to have life

Abelard

July 25th 2007, 05:10 AM

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

The law of Moses is God's Law.

Nope. God's law was in effect long before Moses. Was there no divine law before Deuteronomy? I think one can make a case for the decalogue being God's law, but not the entire Mosaic law.

In both our religious traditions God has sent a line of prophets to restate, change and guide people back towards God's law. These individual prophets and their laws are specific to their times and the transgressions of the particular peoples involved.

Isn't this why Muhammad implemented the shari'a of Islam instead of just circumcising all the Arabs?

MaxVel

July 25th 2007, 07:43 AM

Hi Moose -

Hello and Peace be to you Max,

How can we call that a curse??? According to God, if you follow his commandments you are loved by him. And in one verse he says that he is merciful to those who follow his law. Mercy is given to people who are not perfect. God knows we can't follow all his rules at all times, but that doesn't mean we give up, we try and when you sin you repent, for God says his mercy is from everlasting to everlasting. God states that those who are not under the law are cursed.

Can you let me know what verses you're reading that support this? Out of interest...

That's not what God states. God states that he is merciful. If one can follow the law perfectly he does not need God's mercy. But God know that no one can do that, and that is why he said he is merciful, because he forgives people when they sin.

The verse you cited (Deuteronomy 27:26) clearly says that anyone who does not keep all the commandments of the Law is cursed.

God may well choose to be merciful and not implement those consequences (of not keeping the Law fully), but the fact remains that no-one can be considered righteous under the Law, unless they can consistently keep all it's commandments.

Actually, I wouldn't call him an expert. There are verses he did misinterpret, in Romans 3, I believe, it seems like he took verses out of context completely. Go to the site that I have provided for more information. I do think he did get it wrong if he implied that Jesus was hung on a tree. From what I know, and as some have been saying that crucifixion is not mentioned during the time of Moses, so hanging on a tree must mean just that, I don't think its metaphorical for crucifixion.

I think I'll stick with what Paul says on this, unless you can provide very convincing evidence that he is wrong (perhaps in another thread).

Here's Paul's credentials to speak as an authority on this:

Philippians 3: 3 - 6: 'for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.'

{I'd thoroughly recommend reading the whole chapter, it's quite pertinent to this topic}

Paul clearly was an expert in the OT, the Mosaic Law and it's meaning . Further, he was affirmed by other apostles as teaching correct doctrine (see Galatians 1 & 2). So if you wish to say that he's wrong about something in this area, I think a considerable burden of proof lies on you.

You see, that's where I see the unfairness of it all. God states that the covenant of love is to folloow his commandments, that's how to become righteous.

Can anyone do that in practice?

If not, then the implication is that God had something better in mind, and (as the Bible teaches) the Mosaic Law was intended to show us our inability to be righteous through our own efforts. And hence, our need of a Saviour...

Christianity states that you need only faith in Jesus to be righteous. One group has to work and follow laws and the other needs faith to achieve the same goal. It doesn't seem right.

Does everyone have the choice to come under the New Covenant* (i.e. to choose to accept the righteousness that is available in Jesus?)? I believe they do - for example, the original Christians were all Jews who chose to enter into a new Covenant with God. Therefore I don;t think it can be reasonably seen as unfair - it's up to people to choose which covenant they want to be under.

* A note on covenants: loosely speaking they are something akin to business contracts: there are two parties (here God and man), and conditions set out ( Man shall do X, God will do Y), as well as reward clauses and penalty clauses for failure to uphold one's part of the agreement.

Now, I do think that the law still is binding today because God stated that this covenant is for 1000 generations. Those who are not under the law are cursed.

It's still binding for those that choose to enter into that covenant. The Mosaic Law gives us a picture of God's general expectations for human behaviour, but is not binding on everyone in all aspects - for example, in dietary matters - unless one specifically chooses to enter into that covenant with God.

For a Christian, what is binding as a covenant are only those parts of the Mosaic Law that Jesus specifically affirmed, plus any other commandments that He gave. An example is John 15:17

"This I command you, that you love one another."

And where in the bible is Jesus ever mentioned, besides Paul's saying, that he would become a curse for the people??? I have never seen that supported anywhere nor have I seen the apostles or Jesus himself make such a claim.

Does that make Paul wrong about Jesus becoming a curse?

mastralvarado

July 25th 2007, 04:46 PM

Hi Moose -
<snip>
Does that make Paul wrong about Jesus becoming a curse?

Would you accept Paul as being wrong if any of his teachings is inaccurate (literally)?

moose7237

July 26th 2007, 01:00 AM

I have answered that one in previous threads. Perhaps another member would like to give their take on this question.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

I really would like a reference. If not, please give me an explanation of some sort. I see it as true injustice, how the most righteous man in the world was forsaken by God. If God forsook Jesus, what makes you think he won't forsake you as well?

That is one of those questions that theologians and philosophers have pondered over for centuries. My own take on this matter is that God is not fully Omnipotent until the End Times, when good finally conquers evil. But he is there in spirit with whoever suffers. This is the view of theologians such as Alfred Whitehead and Karl Barth. See here for more details; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Listen to this all Christians!!! According to Narnian, God is not omnipotent. Utter blasphemy. If he is there in spirit, in which way does help them??? Many infants and babies die because of hunger or disease. They were not given the equal chance to live like we do. Where is the love in that? The way I see it, they were forsaken like Jesus. In Islam, Allah tells us, such people will be dealt with justly in the afterlife, they will attain heaven. But according to you, heaven does not exist.

:lol: an honest thief? Bit of an oxymoron, no?

A thief cannot be honest? You stated God wants honesty. A thief testifies that he steals all the time, and continues to do so. According to you, he is doing what God wants of him, and that is to be honest. I don't know if many of the people here believe that piracy is a form of stealing, but I know many people who admit to piracy all the time by stating "I am going to download this movie, or that song" They are honest in admitting they are not buying the software but obtaining it for free. So yes, I would say that thieves can be honest.

A perfect example of how a rule does NOT work. An alcoholic has a phsycical addiction and allergic reaction to alcohol, and he needs medication and psychological help to stop drinking. The most successful program is AA which starts not with telling you to stop, but by guiding the person to have a total transformation, beginning with repentence. See The Twelve Steps of AA.

Would you say the same thing about a smoker??? I am sure some alcoholics, if they call upon Allah for help, he could help them stop drinking alcohol on the spot. Ask for Allah's help and he will help if one truly asks, whether in this life or in the next. I know one of my personal friends who had been smoking since he was a teen or early twenties, and now he is in his 40's. Just a few months ago, he made a promise that if he ever smoked again, he would slaughter 1000 sheep. He quit on the spot, and has not smoked a cigarette since. I'm sure its possible for an alcoholic to stop on the spot. They just have to be sincere and change their heart towards Allah.

Like the majority of people, I am lucky that I don't have an allergy or addiction to alcohol, and I can enjoy my red wine, which is also good for you in moderation. :teeth:

NT 1Titus 5:23 - Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine

Allah tells us in the Quran that wine may have its advantages, but its disadvantes outweigh the advantages, therefore it is forbidden. I think it was wine, or just alcohol in general.

Mass hysteria, neurotransmitters, endorphins and hormones; that's all it is. It fools you into thinking it was a spiritual experience.

Are you a scientist??? What makes you think that these are the reasons to contribute to a spiritual experience. One of my friends who wasn't spiritual in Christianity, now is spiritual, I guess he is just being fooled by Mass hysteria, hormones, etc.

God comes to you in the quietest and most normal of settings. Just washing the dishes or watering the garden and in the quiet of your heart he is there. He comes to you when you let go of striving, when you let go of struggle, of any sort of jihad, when you realise that nothing you can do, nothing you can do about self improvement can lead to God extending his Grace and Love to you. But your strivings and struggles and noise only keep him outside, because only when you totally surrender and admit your total inability to live up to Allah's demands - in that space; God comes to you for the first time.

Can you make this claim for every single human being on this earth??? Two of my family members had gone to Haj and changed their ways completely when they came back. One of them never prayed, nor fasted, and enjoyed the exotic life, after going to Haj, he changed his ways and is now praying, fasting, and more religious. He went to Haj 2 years ago, and it has changed him. Another is my uncle's wife, who never wore the Hijab, after Haj, she changed her way, May Allah bless them both and all of our Muslim Brothers and Sisters who are devoted to Allah.

You are taking it all WAY too literally. I'm not a literalist and I don't believe that at least half - if not all - the stories of the OT were factually true. I do not believe that God wrote it either, so whatever is said there can be debated and measured up to fit the "God is Love".

You are not a literalist??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

This coming from the person who took verse 5:33 too literally even though I quoted out of commentaries that stated it was not? Who are you trying to fool? But back to Deu 7:9-12. If God stated that this covenant was for 1000 generations, either he abrogated his saying, he lied, or he is not the all knowing.

john 5 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form, 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent. 39 "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to have life

There are plenty of accounts of people who stated in the bible they have seen God and heard him. This alone proves that John 5:37 is faulty. I think Jesus stated that the people must come to him as the law states and accept him and still have to follow the law in order to have salvation. In Islam we must accept all of the prophets in order to be called Muslims. We must still follow the rules, but if we reject the prophets we are really not true Muslims. I think that is what Jesus meant.

moose7237

July 26th 2007, 01:26 AM

Hi Moose -

Can you let me know what verses you're reading that support this? Out of interest...

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

The verses are all under my original OP in this thread.

The verse you cited (Deuteronomy 27:26) clearly says that anyone who does not keep all the commandments of the Law is cursed.

God may well choose to be merciful and not implement those consequences (of not keeping the Law fully), but the fact remains that no-one can be considered righteous under the Law, unless they can consistently keep all it's commandments.

God stated those that do not keep all his commandments are cursed. But as I also cited, he states that his mercy is infinite. He also states in Ezekiel that those who forsake their evil ways will be forgiven thus meaning they are not cursed. So by God's mercy and Compassion if one sins and truly repents, then by God's mercy, he will not curse them. But consistency I think is the key, you have to consistently keep the law at all times, but if you do sin, you must repent and know that God is the all merciful. No one can be considered righteous under the law??? I beg to differ:

Ezekiel 18:9

9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign LORD.

Why would God say such a thing in Ezekiel 18:9, when as stated by Paul, no one is righteous under the law? I think God states that one can be made righteous under the law. He must repent and be faithful.

I think I'll stick with what Paul says on this, unless you can provide very convincing evidence that he is wrong (perhaps in another thread).

Did you visit the site I put up in my original OP??? Please visit that and read about how Paul is wrong. Then tell me why you think the author of that article is wrong if you can, so that I can learn of your opinion and so can the readers at Tweb, that is if you are willing to do this.

Paul clearly was an expert in the OT, the Mosaic Law and it's meaning . Further, he was affirmed by other apostles as teaching correct doctrine (see Galatians 1 & 2). So if you wish to say that he's wrong about something in this area, I think a considerable burden of proof lies on you.

Paul took verses of the OT out of context for one. I don't think he had even studied the OT in depth. A case of this was when he stated that Abraham was justified by faith, when James rebuked that by saying that Abraham was justified by works. Paul misquoted verses in the OT as well.

Can anyone do that in practice?

If not, then the implication is that God had something better in mind, and (as the Bible teaches) the Mosaic Law was intended to show us our inability to be righteous through our own efforts. And hence, our need of a Saviour...

Ezekiel 18:9 actually shows the opposite as God himself states that a man that keeps his commandments is righteous. I would not understand why God would say such a thing if such a task is impossible. Being that God does not remember a man's sins if he truly repents, I would say it is possible to be righteous under the law. Abraham himself had nations blessed by him obeying laws of God.

Does everyone have the choice to come under the New Covenant* (i.e. to choose to accept the righteousness that is available in Jesus?)? I believe they do - for example, the original Christians were all Jews who chose to enter into a new Covenant with God. Therefore I don;t think it can be reasonably seen as unfair - it's up to people to choose which covenant they want to be under.

So why would God say those who do not follow his covenant of love, which is the covenant of the mosaic Law would be cursed? If one chooses another covenant he is cursed, so in order he is not cursed he must abide by this covenant of love God talks about in Deu. 7:9-12. I'm sure people do have the choice to choose, but why choose a covenant that would result in you being cursed. I will get to Galations 3:10 in a minute here.

For a Christian, what is binding as a covenant are only those parts of the Mosaic Law that Jesus specifically affirmed, plus any other commandments that He gave. An example is John 15:17

"This I command you, that you love one another."

God states that all commandments are binding, if not all are followed, as you pointed out the verse, the person is cursed by God.

Does that make Paul wrong about Jesus becoming a curse?

It does, because number 1: Where does it state that a person becomes a curse rather then be cursed in the OT??
number 2: To be cursed by God and to qualify for the hanging on the tree one must commit a sin worthy of death. Since Jesus never committed any sins how can one say he was cursed let alone become a curse?

Narnian

July 26th 2007, 04:00 AM

I really would like a reference. If not, please give me an explanation of some sort. I see it as true injustice, how the most righteous man in the world was forsaken by God.

If you go to the ''Is Islam a Totem'' Relgion thread and read there where Chabchaba comes into the conversation, you will find all my explanations there.

Listen to this all Christians!!! According to Narnian, God is not omnipotent. Utter blasphemy.

Not at all. Omnipotence was later added doctrine, ie a few centuries after the church was established. Did you read the Wiki entry I gave you at all?

Here is Rev R Traer's statement on the 3 Os from www.christian-bible.com

The O categories (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent) are all post-biblical..

Allah tells us in the Quran that wine may have its advantages, but its disadvantes outweigh the advantages, therefore it is forbidden. I think it was wine, or just alcohol in general.

Jesus loved to party. He turned water into wine and never missed a party. :cheers:

Whereas Allah is a party pooper. :ahem:

Are you a scientist??? What makes you think that these are the reasons to contribute to a spiritual experience. One of my friends who wasn't spiritual in Christianity, now is spiritual, I guess he is just being fooled by Mass hysteria, hormones, etc.

Scientists have long known this phenomenon.

Can you make this claim for every single human being on this earth??? Two of my family members had gone to Haj and changed their ways completely when they came back. One of them never prayed, nor fasted, and enjoyed the exotic life, after going to Haj, he changed his ways and is now praying, fasting, and more religious. He went to Haj 2 years ago, and it has changed him. Another is my uncle's wife, who never wore the Hijab, after Haj, she changed her way, May Allah bless them both and all of our Muslim Brothers and Sisters who are devoted to Allah.

Doing set prayer sequences, fasting and being an ascetic is not hard - anyone can do this. Prayer sequences, fasting and asceticism do nothing to transform you - they just deaden you. In fact, these activities fool you and others into thinking you have been tranformed, but really you are just the same underneath.

But it takes a giant leap of faith, courage and intelligence to allow oneself to be transformed and changed on the inside.

That's why I keep repeating that it is MUCH easier to follow a set of rules that change you externally ...... than it is to be transformed internally. I think that is part of the reason why muslims - and others - fight Christianity so much. They resist that transformation, because it has to do with letting go of one's ego. It's much easier to be an ascetic ....... than have to face one's lack of love within.

You are not a literalist??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

This coming from the person who took verse 5:33 too literally even though I quoted out of commentaries that stated it was not? Who are you trying to fool?

Allah dictated the Quran.

Humans wrote the NT and OT.

Therein lies the difference.

There are plenty of accounts of people who stated in the bible they have seen God and heard him. This alone proves that John 5:37 is faulty.

Circular reasoning.

I think Jesus stated that the people must come to him as the law states and accept him and still have to follow the law in order to have salvation.

Your references?

In Islam we must accept all of the prophets in order to be called Muslims. We must still follow the rules, but if we reject the prophets we are really not true Muslims. I think that is what Jesus meant.

Just as being a Christian is not about following rules or ascetism, neither is it about having to "accept" certain prophets or forcing oneself into belief systems. It is about radical transformation from the inside. Your old self dies and your new self is "born again" into Zoe (spiritual life):

Col 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom

Narnian

July 26th 2007, 10:09 PM

Hi Moose,

something else for you to ponder ..... you know the Book of Job in the Wisdom section of the OT? Find me one instance in that book where Job follows any part of Mosaic Law or even mentions it, the Exodus or Moses. He speaks of worshipping celestial beings instead. Yet he is one of the great heros of the OT. (plus he never hurt a soul)

Furthermore "Moses" is barely mentioned (8 times in all) in the voluminous books of the prophets, psalms and the wisdom writers.

There is historical evidence to suggest that Mosaic Law was nowhere near as big as it was later made out to be, and only confined to a tiny area and to just one tribe. In fact, the latest archeological findings suggest that Moses did not exist at all and was a myth. Google Drs Finkelstein and Silberman, with their book The Bible Unearthed. I recently saw their BBC documentary and it was very convincing.

There was no canon of writings until the Greeks put one together in 200BC in Greek. The Hebrew canon was not created until 100AD.

MaxVel

July 27th 2007, 08:00 AM

Moose -

I have had a brief look at the site you recommended, and also briefly looked at a few of Sherry Shriner's other sites.

Frankly, she strikes me as a nutcase, and I do not say that lightly or mockingly.

Some quotes from other of her sites:
"They're talking to you..subliminal hypnotic messages..courtesy of these towers..in particular they are Mind conditioning and Mind control towers and they're going up in every neighborhood across the country.

We've been conditioned to believe we need all these towers for cell phones. These ARE NOT cell phone towers, read about The ELF God.

The types above are typical for ELF towers that the NWO is using for mind control messaging and dumbing down the population. Sensitive people can pick up messages such as "Accept The New World Order" and others being blasted by these towers. "

source (http://www.orgoneblasters.com/)

"Are they all alien and demonic in origin? No. In fact many humans have sold out to Satan and are soldiers in his army and many have seen them or even heard about them...the men in black.

I'm not just talking about MIB's as some have experienced odd encounters with them and also featured via Hollywood movies, but the men in black in uniform that many have seen throughout the United States." and

"They may be part of the UN, but more particularly they are Satan's army on earth. Our own NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, and many other federal agencies that have over the past decade given room to these 'black op' departments within them who work to secure our future into slavery and domination of Satan and his NWO."

source (http://sherryshriner.blogspot.com/)

"These Annunaki are NOT our creators. As you can see they themselves were created beings by God in heaven and were assigned to watch over the earth. When they rebelled, they were cast out of heaven, their first estate, although they do still reign in the first and second heavens and inhabit other planets and star systems visiting Earth in UFOs. Many of them, have underground bases here in the earth. In the ensuing years the Theory of Evolution will be discredited from the very founders themselves and their pawns. They will then promote through Government Disinfo Scientists that mankind was created in a test tube by these Annunaki and that these Annunaki are our creators. This is part of the grand delusion and lie at the end of days."

source (http://www.hiddencodes.com/annunaki.htm)

"Without God's anointing and direction, I do not even think it is possible to get very far in understanding or decoding Bible Codes accurately. It is very difficult and not something you can even do without discernment. Sure, there are those who try to decode and even publish their results but I have found very few that are really led by Him to do them. Most interpreters decode out of their own interest and curiosity and make a multitude of mistakes.

Finding a Bible Code is half the battle. You have to know how to accurately read and analyze the information and understand how the Hebrew language uses terms. Without the Lord’s anointing and key to decoding, I would not be the decoder I am today. He has given me a key to the codes. When He told me He had given me a key to the codes, I did not really understand the extent of what He had said until I saw the work of many other decoders and their little if not complete lack of understanding of how the codes really work. "

source (http://www.sherryshriner.com/sherry/intro.htm)

{note the complete subjectivity of this - she's right, and those who don't see the 'Bible codes' her way are wrong.}

Moose - Sherry strikes me as someone who has an obsession for conspiracies and esoterica. She asspears to have written hundreds of pages of stuff on topics like the 'upcoming alien takeover' and so forth, all based on her personal understandings and 'special revelations' that she has, and using no other recognised sources.

I therefore wonder at your citing of her as a credible source for saying that Paul has 'got it wrong'....

moose7237

July 27th 2007, 01:26 PM

moose7237

July 27th 2007, 01:31 PM

If you go to the ''Is Islam a Totem'' Relgion thread and read there where Chabchaba comes into the conversation, you will find all my explanations there.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

I went there last night, and I really didn't find much of an explanation as to the love of God towards Jesus when he forsook him. Please do explain here if you are willing to do so.

Not at all. Omnipotence was later added doctrine, ie a few centuries after the church was established. Did you read the Wiki entry I gave you at all?

Here is Rev R Traer's statement on the 3 Os from www.christian-bible.com

The O categories (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent) are all post-biblical..

I do know that in the OT I have seen God state that he is everywhere. Maybe the words "omnipotent", etc. do not exist, but I'm quite sure the concepts are there in the bible.

Jesus loved to party. He turned water into wine and never missed a party. :cheers:

Whereas Allah is a party pooper. :ahem:

I think thats such a wrong attitude because partying that involves alcohol is very dangerous. Allah wants the best for us, evidently Jesus is for getting drunk, which increases the risk of accidents, alcohol poisoning, and effects in decision making. I would prefer not partying and I am glad my Lord has forbidden me to do any of these things for it would only benefit me.

Scientists have long known this phenomenon.

hey if it applies to Islamic experiences, I see it applying to Christianity as well. Are you trying to imply that the experience is temporary and not permanent? Because people have completely changed their ways after going to Haj.

Doing set prayer sequences, fasting and being an ascetic is not hard - anyone can do this. Prayer sequences, fasting and asceticism do nothing to transform you - they just deaden you. In fact, these activities fool you and others into thinking you have been tranformed, but really you are just the same underneath.

But it takes a giant leap of faith, courage and intelligence to allow oneself to be transformed and changed on the inside.

That's why I keep repeating that it is MUCH easier to follow a set of rules that change you externally ...... than it is to be transformed internally. I think that is part of the reason why muslims - and others - fight Christianity so much. They resist that transformation, because it has to do with letting go of one's ego. It's much easier to be an ascetic ....... than have to face one's lack of love within.

Allah dictated the Quran.

Humans wrote the NT and OT.

Therein lies the difference.

Circular reasoning.

Your references?

Just as being a Christian is not about following rules or ascetism, neither is it about having to "accept" certain prophets or forcing oneself into belief systems. It is about radical transformation from the inside. Your old self dies and your new self is "born again" into Zoe (spiritual life):

Col 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom[/QUOTE]

Narnian

July 27th 2007, 10:57 PM

I went there last night, and I really didn't find much of an explanation as to the love of God towards Jesus when he forsook him. Please do explain here if you are willing to do so.

sorry Moose, but I find it boring having to repeat myself, so if you really want to find it, keep looking in that thread.

I do know that in the OT I have seen God state that he is everywhere. Maybe the words "omnipotent", etc. do not exist, but I'm quite sure the concepts are there in the bible.

If you read that Wiki entry you will find your answer there.

I think thats such a wrong attitude because partying that involves alcohol is very dangerous.

Alcohol is only dangerous to those who drink more than a glass or two, who are allergic to it, who are taking medications or who are alcoholics. I have a glass of wine with my meal every day and there is no danger in that. I love parties, but never drink more than one glass. I go for the social atmosphere, not the booze :lol:

Everything in moderation is the key.

hey if it applies to Islamic experiences, I see it applying to Christianity as well.

It applies everywhere for anything. Islamic experiences are not unique. Only, it's not "spiritual" but a bunch of neurotransmitters, endorphins and hormones; and that's what it should be called, so that people do not get confused by what is really a spitiutal experience.

Are you trying to imply that the experience is temporary and not permanent? Because people have completely changed their ways after going to Haj.

People have changed their ways after cllimbing up Mt Everest. I changed my ways after backpacking around europe. I have a friend who changed his ways after starting karate. Another friend changed her ways after visiting Antarctica and seeing this great wilderness. So, to imply that the Haj changed their ways because Allah did it, is a genetic fallacy. And it has fooled many. :ahem:

I note that you avoided replying to my main points.

Repasting:

Doing set prayer sequences, fasting and being an ascetic is not hard - anyone can do this. Prayer sequences, fasting and asceticism do nothing to transform you - they just deaden you. In fact, these activities fool you and others into thinking you have been tranformed, but really you are just the same underneath.

But it takes a giant leap of faith, courage and intelligence to allow oneself to be transformed and changed on the inside.

That's why I keep repeating that it is MUCH easier to follow a set of rules that change you externally ...... than it is to be transformed internally. I think that is part of the reason why muslims - and others - fight Christianity so much. They resist that transformation, because it has to do with letting go of one's ego. It's much easier to be an ascetic ....... than have to face one's lack of love within.

Just as being a Christian is not about following rules or ascetism, neither is it about having to "accept" certain prophets or forcing oneself into belief systems. It is about radical transformation from the inside. Your old self dies and your new self is "born again" into Zoe (spiritual life):

Col 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom

moose7237

July 28th 2007, 04:51 AM

sorry Moose, but I find it boring having to repeat myself, so if you really want to find it, keep looking in that thread.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

You really do find it boring to repeat yourself Narnian??? Lets see how honest this statement of yours actually is:

Here is a comparison of Sura 86 with the NT:

[86.1] I swear by the heaven and the comer by night;
[86.2] And what will make you know what the comer by night is?
[86.3] The star of piercing brightness; (Morning Star = Jesus 2Pe1:19 Rev2:28 22:16))
[86.4] There is not a soul but over it is a keeper.
[86.5] So let man consider of what he is created:

John 1:5We are born with water, and are nourished with blood and body.
This is he that came by water and blood,

[86.6] He is created of water pouring forth,
[86.7] Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Joh 19:34But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.

This next verse is a quote from Paul;

[86.8] Most surely He is able to return him (to life) ('him' = Jesus; the Morning Star)
[86.9] On the day when hidden things shall be made manifest,

1Co 4:5 ... until the Lord (ie Jesus/Morning Star) come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts ...

1John 5We are born with water, and are nourished with blood and body. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth…And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood"

86.10 And by the earth which cracks open (refers to earthquake at moment of J's death when his water and blood hit the ground)

Mat 27:51The earth shook, and the rocks were split.... 54 the centurion <soldier> and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1999368&postcount=101

And then you have a thread entirely dedicated to this subject located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=77145

And even more repetition about the same topic here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2025857&postcount=135

And I can't recall the number of times you have repeated the same thing about Muhammad and the single mother, and more about 9:5, etc. I guess when it comes to bashing Islam you are ready to repeat over and over and over again. But when it comes to something against Christianity, you suddenly don't care to do so anymore. Now please answer the question:

Where is the love in having Jesus die and humiliated. God could have made his death easy, but why crucifixion, and why did he forsake Jesus when Jesus prayed, yes prayed, in utter humiliation to be saved from it???

If you read that Wiki entry you will find your answer there.

I didn't see a wikiquote, but you said something about christian-bible.com

Alcohol is only dangerous to those who drink more than a glass or two, who are allergic to it, who are taking medications or who are alcoholics. I have a glass of wine with my meal every day and there is no danger in that. I love parties, but never drink more than one glass. I go for the social atmosphere, not the booze :lol:

Everything in moderation is the key.

Wait, are you going to tell those poor teens who go clubbing every night to not get drunk and have fun??? Where's the love in that? I doubt people drink alcohol for its taste but rather to get drunk. And how many people do avoid being drunk. You state that you only take a glass after a meal, have you gone overboard? (you don't have to answer if you don't want to, since it is a personal question)

But hey, according to you, even if you do get drunk, commit fornication, cause a crash, or do something really dumb, and not regret these things and still continue to drink, God still loves you and he will give you salvation :lol: In Islam, such people must be disciplined for harming others especially.

It applies everywhere for anything. Islamic experiences are not unique. Only, it's not "spiritual" but a bunch of neurotransmitters, endorphins and hormones; and that's what it should be called, so that people do not get confused by what is really a spitiutal experience.

Please answer my question, are these effects supposed to be temporary or permanent??? I know emotions based on hormones are not permanent, yet after going to haj people have permanently changed their lives.

People have changed their ways after cllimbing up Mt Everest. I changed my ways after backpacking around europe. I have a friend who changed his ways after starting karate. Another friend changed her ways after visiting Antarctica and seeing this great wilderness. So, to imply that the Haj changed their ways because Allah did it, is a genetic fallacy. And it has fooled many. :ahem:

I never stated that Allah changed people's ways, I stated people changed their ways for Allah. Or I meant that at least. Allah doesn't change us or dictate us, it is our choice, he will guide us when we need him.

I note that you avoided replying to my main points.

Repasting:

Sorry bout that, I was at work and was not supposed to be replying, so when things got suspicious I just pasted whatever I had and closed the window.

Doing set prayer sequences, fasting and being an ascetic is not hard - anyone can do this. Prayer sequences, fasting and asceticism do nothing to transform you - they just deaden you. In fact, these activities fool you and others into thinking you have been tranformed, but really you are just the same underneath.

These things will not transform you if you see them without remembering God and doing this entirely for him. One must know why they are fasting and why they pray. That in itself shows you love God and are devoted to him and want to be closer to him. If one follows God's rules and laws, they will be transformed. For Allah wants us to be kind, just, peaceful, etc. These are laws of Allah, and those transform you inside. We are commanded to do these things, and when we understand it in the sense that it is for God, then truly we will be transformed.

But it takes a giant leap of faith, courage and intelligence to allow oneself to be transformed and changed on the inside.

That's where Islam differs from Christianity. The idea of being "born again" means that at one point you were X and then you transformed into Y. Islam tells us always to be at Y, that is where we start off, there is no transformation.

That's why I keep repeating that it is MUCH easier to follow a set of rules that change you externally ...... than it is to be transformed internally. I think that is part of the reason why muslims - and others - fight Christianity so much. They resist that transformation, because it has to do with letting go of one's ego. It's much easier to be an ascetic ....... than have to face one's lack of love within.

No, so many Muslims speak out against Christianity for many reasons:
1. the bible being altered by man
2. unknown authors of the bible
3. The most important reason, associating Partners with Allah
4. Quotes of Jesus making him seem like God
5. The notion that salvation is attained by faith only, which is a contradiction in the bible
6. The fact that God forsook Jesus, and Jesus accuses God of forsaking him
7. The crucifixion
8. Paul encouraging people not to get married, and Jesus stating that you are not allowed for divorce unless for adultery.

The list goes on and on.

Islam does teach us to be morally Good, for that is the purpose of Allah's laws, is for us to be morally good and just. What you have been telling everyone here, is that it doesn't matter if you are good or bad, God still loves you. According to us, that is injustice. For if God loves a righteous person who works hard and strives to avoid sin, and tries to have the morals of Jesus, the same way he loves a tyrant, then people wouldn't care about morals, they would rely on faith only, and society would be corrupt, this is what that site you gave me about morality and 7 year olds states. We need laws in order to have a functioning society.

Just as being a Christian is not about following rules or ascetism, neither is it about having to "accept" certain prophets or forcing oneself into belief systems. It is about radical transformation from the inside. Your old self dies and your new self is "born again" into Zoe (spiritual life):

You do have to "accept" Jesus as your savior and lord. Islam does not force anyone to believe anything. In Islam you are already born and taught morals right away, there is no transformation.

Col 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom

Here Jesus states many commands for humans: Matthew 5:27-33

Adultery
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[a] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, 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. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, [B]and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Oaths
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

Jesus commands his people to mutilate themselves because they are sinning. Jesus commands people not to marry a divorced woman because that is considered as adultery, which is a sin, and can cause you to enter hell. Jesus also commands that no one swears.

That looks like some bold commands to me. This is from jesus himself.

Narnian

July 28th 2007, 06:52 AM

I didn't see a wikiquote, but you said something about christian-bible.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Wait, are you going to tell those poor teens who go clubbing every night to not get drunk and have fun??? Where's the love in that?

Strawman fallacy :ahem:

I doubt people drink alcohol for its taste but rather to get drunk.

Nonesense ..... non-alcoholics - which is the majority of people - dislike the feeling of intoxication so we take care not to drink more than the right amount which, for me, is one glass. My pastor is a wine connoisseur and I've never seen him even the slightest bit drunk. My parents also :ahem:

But hey, according to you, even if you do get drunk, commit fornication, cause a crash, or do something really dumb, and not regret these things and still continue to drink, God still loves you and he will give you salvation :lol: In Islam, such people must be disciplined for harming others especially.

THey are - they go to jail :ahem:

Please answer my question, are these effects supposed to be temporary or permanent??? I know emotions based on hormones are not permanent, yet after going to haj people have permanently changed their lives.

The friend who went to antarctica got a big "rush" when she went and even after the neurotransmitters calmed down she remained a changed person because of it.

Sorry bout that, I was at work and was not supposed to be replying, so when things got suspicious I just pasted whatever I had and closed the window.

I understand :smile:

That's where Islam differs from Christianity. The idea of being "born again" means that at one point you were X and then you transformed into Y. Islam tells us always to be at Y, that is where we start off, there is no transformation.

And that is the problem.

We need laws in order to have a functioning society.

argumentum ad nauseum.

Here Jesus states many commands for humans: Matthew 5:27-33

And this is where you have it all wrong about the NT. The NT is NOT like the Koran - it is not a book full of rules and laws; it is a finger pointing to the proverbial "moon". The end point of Christianity is not the text but the experience of the Living Christ.

-

Chabchaba

July 28th 2007, 06:55 AM

"Love is the fulfillment of the law"
Rules and laws are for the immature;

Heb 5:13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Ultimately The Law distracts you from the real issue: salvation through grace alone.

I agree with you on the laws being for the immature. but don't we all start out being immature? our spiritual growth is dependant on the loving nurturing with milk (Laws) until we can learn to eat the solid food.
The fact that we are provided with this milk is in itself a sign of God's love.
The laws and God's Love are not mutually exclusive but rather they are complementary concepts, where the laws lead you to the point where you become good not because you want a reward or you fear retrubution but you are good because Goodness is a virtue in itself. The point where you can eat the solid food.
trying to eat solid food when you have no teeth means you will be spiritually starved.
The provision of the Laws (milk) are in themselves a way in which God shows his grace; and while people cannot abide completely by the law, they can do their best, knowing that God's mercy and forgiveness extends to all. we do not need to accept the blood sacrifice of a saviour to be saved, God himself is our loving and forgiving saviour.
The laws alone cannot save but the laws together with the mercy and fogiveness of God who knows our limitations and weaknesses can save us.

Can faith alone save us? I think it can, but to me obeying the laws is an indicator by which I can measure my own faith. when I find myself falling short, I see it as a reminder that I could always use some more faith.:smile:

Narnian

July 28th 2007, 09:38 PM

Hi Chabchaba,

I agree with you on the laws being for the immature. but don't we all start out being immature?our spiritual growth is dependant on the loving nurturing with milk (Laws) until we can learn to eat the solid food.

This is a moot point because the Quran is supposed to be speaking to the adults, not children.

Besides, I find my son responds best, not to verbal commands, but to my love and caring attention and all the millions of things I do for him. Rules are not fixed - they change as he matures or our situation changes.

But Sharia law is fixed and is eternal and cross cultural.

So the comparison doesn't work

The fact that we are provided with this milk is in itself a sign of God's love.
The laws and God's Love are not mutually exclusive but rather they are complementary concepts, where the laws lead you to the point where you become good not because you want a reward or you fear retrubution but you are good because Goodness is a virtue in itself. The point where you can eat the solid food.

Now you've just changed from saying that laws are for the immature. Now you are suggesting they are for adults as well :uhoh:

The laws alone cannot save but the laws together with the mercy and fogiveness of God who knows our limitations and weaknesses can save us.

Mercy and love while whipping and stoning adulterers, chopping off thieves hands and shunning non muslims?

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them. [5:51].

This is all part of the Islamic problem of double-speak. In fact, Islam plays Taqiyya and Kitman games with its own muslims more than the "infidels". :uneasy:

Can faith alone save us? I think it can, but to me obeying the laws is an indicator by which I can measure my own faith. when I find myself falling short, I see it as a reminder that I could always use some more faith.:smile:

Works are the fruit of faith and love, not the ability to follow rules and laws. Works are entirely different to laws. If you really had faith you would not need to check yourself to see how much you are living up to some standard, because you would be free of all feelings of inadequacy. Furthermore, if one's heart lacks love (not saying that yours does), then all the faith in the world is nothing;

1Co 13: 1-13 ...... if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

:smile:

MaxVel

July 29th 2007, 04:01 AM

I won't go to the bother of a point-by-point discussion of her analysis, having seen the style and quality of her other work. Some points:

She consistently argues that Paul is wrong, solely on the basis of her own 'better understanding'. An example would be her argument that Paul wrongly used Scripture to support his argument. (see the paragraph on Romans 3)

She uses no external sources, and quotes from no other scholarship.

She shows no evidence of having read any background works on the topic, or engaged with any other views on the matter.

She seems to prefer her own 'more correct' translations of scripture verses, but does no more than assert that her version is 'more correct'. I would expect at least some effort to discuss the meanings in the original language and an argument as to why her version is more correct.

In summary, I find this page to be low on actual scholarship and understanding in depth, and high on amateurish argument by assertion. That, combined with her other material, gives me no reason to think her credible on this topic, and certainly not to think her more credible than the bulk of biblical scholars and the historic doctrines of the church as a whole.

Narnian

July 29th 2007, 04:42 AM

Maxvel,

who is the "she" you are referring to? :noid: I'm the only female in this thread - everyone else is supposedly male. Since I always argue that Paul is right, who, then are you referring to? :uhoh:

MaxVel

July 29th 2007, 05:28 AM

Hey Narnian -

you can relax... the 'she' I was referring to is 'Sherry Shriner', the author of the article cited in Moose's OP.

Check out the link there, and check out the links in my post #22 above for a taste of the 'quality' of her work...

I wouldn't insult you by comparing you to her... :smile:

Chabchaba

July 30th 2007, 09:07 AM

This is a moot point because the Quran is supposed to be speaking to the adults, not children.
Many adults are spiritually chidren. The quran is for everyone. It's not only for those who have attained considerable spiritual growth, it nurtures the children with "milk" and gives the adults solid food.

Besides, I find my son responds best, not to verbal commands, but to my love and caring attention and all the millions of things I do for him. Rules are not fixed - they change as he matures or our situation changes.

But Sharia law is fixed and is eternal and cross cultural.

So the comparison doesn't work

Your child still has rules to help him develop. when he grows there will be a voice inside him which, coupled with his mature brain will guide him. The guiding parent will be ingrained into his personality.
Sharia laws are like the parent whose guidance helps you to mature.

Now you've just changed from saying that laws are for the immature. Now you are suggesting they are for adults as well :uhoh:
Lots of people need help to attain their spiritual growth. God provides the way for them in the Quran because it speaks to people no matter what stage of their growth they are in.

Mercy and love while whipping and stoning adulterers, chopping off thieves hands and shunning non muslims?

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them. [5:51].

This is all part of the Islamic problem of double-speak. In fact, Islam plays Taqiyya and Kitman games with its own muslims more than the "infidels". :uneasy:

The best way to understand quranic verses is to find their explanation in the quran itself.
This is a verse from the same sura which you quoted:
This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter. [5:5]

The fact that one can marry from people of the book, not just make friends with them shows clearly that you have misunderstood the verse. The verse can be better understood when you read these verses:

"It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.

Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust." [60:7 - 9]

Works are the fruit of faith and love, not the ability to follow rules and laws. Works are entirely different to laws. If you really had faith you would not need to check yourself to see how much you are living up to some standard, because you would be free of all feelings of inadequacy. Furthermore, if one's heart lacks love (not saying that yours does), then all the faith in the world is nothing;

1Co 13: 1-13 ...... if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Western Christianity is a guilt based system and does not offer true freedom. Only when you are completely free from this guilt based system's mindset can you give true love and have true faith in your heart.

Narnian

July 30th 2007, 10:25 AM

Sharia laws are like the parent whose guidance helps you to mature.

Oh? So can you show me proof that Sharia changes and adapts to different eras and situations, and drops altogether once this individual is mature enough?

Lots of people need help to attain their spiritual growth. God provides the way for them in the Quran because it speaks to people no matter what stage of their growth they are in.

I have read the Quran and tried very hard to find something in it, but it doesn't speak to me at all. I find it oppressive and sinister to read. Why doens't it speak to my stage of growth?

The best way to understand quranic verses is to find their explanation in the quran itself.
This is a verse from the same sura which you quoted:
This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter. [5:5]

And you say there is no contradictions in the dictated book? :ahem:

Why write "Muslims take not Jews and Christians for friends" if you really mean that you WANT them to make them friends? What sort of spin doctor was Allah?

The fact that one can marry from people of the book, not just make friends with them shows clearly that you have misunderstood the verse. The verse can be better understood when you read these verses:

You think I'm that dumb? :lol: How many muslim women are allowed to marry christian or jewish men? And how many Christian wives of muslims are allowed to bring their children up as christians?

None

"It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Allah is a contradictory and jumbled mess. He doesn't know what he wants, and hence confuses and fogs up his subjects' brains, while giving lip service to being "clear" and "all knowing" :ahem:

Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust." [/I][60:7 - 9]

That verse does NOT say only those christians and jews who make war against Islam, it says just "christians and Jews".

I fight Islam and its prophet daily. Should I be killed or just shunned? :popcorn:

5:33 This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land.

Don't bother to tell me that "fight" means a physical battle against muslims, because it specifically says Allah and Muhammad; one of which is invisible and the other is dead. I have checked with an arabic speaker and the verse can be read as ideological fight. Also, don't bother sending me verse 5:32 and 5:34 because it will just make me laugh at how crazily the Quran is written and I will only ask you, once again; "WHY write something when you don't mean it?" :ahem:

Writing what you mean is one of the first lessons you learn in literary expression. If I wrote essays at university like Allah has written the Quran, I would get a big fat "Fail".

Western Christianity is a guilt based system and does not offer true freedom. .

Your evidence?

Only when you are completely free from this guilt based system's mindset can you give true love and have true faith in your heart

Noone can be "completely free" of negative emotions, or we wouldn't be humans. Accepting oneself as one is, with all one's imperfections is more about love than is the fruitless and impossible task of "getting rid of them".

.

Chabchaba

July 30th 2007, 01:50 PM

Oh? So can you show me proof that Sharia changes and adapts to different eras and situations, and drops altogether once this individual is mature enough?

At any given moment there are people at different stages of spiritual development. the law is for the ones who have not developed enough to guide them. For those who are developed the law will be inside them, a part of their personality.

I have read the Quran and tried very hard to find something in it, but it doesn't speak to me at all. I find it oppressive and sinister to read. Why doens't it speak to my stage of growth?

I doubt that. I think that you have relied on your imam to explain to you and he didn't do a good job.

And you say there is no contradictions in the dictated book? :ahem:

Why write "Muslims take not Jews and Christians for friends" if you really mean that you WANT them to make them friends? What sort of spin doctor was Allah?
The Quran was revealed in parts, each part was on a specific occasion. If you want to understand the verses you can find the explanation in other verses of the Quran or in the Hadith.

You think I'm that dumb? :lol: How many muslim women are allowed to marry christian or jewish men? And how many Christian wives of muslims are allowed to bring their children up as christians?

None

I personally know two brothers who were born from a muslim father and a christian mother. one of the boys was raised as a muslim and the other as a christian. I feel sorry for the christian kid but what can I do?

Allah is a contradictory and jumbled mess. He doesn't know what he wants, and hence confuses and fogs up his subjects' brains, while giving lip service to being "clear" and "all knowing" :ahem:

It's clear enough for me and I'm not confused. If you choose to shut yourself to it and not to understand it then no one can help you.

That verse does NOT say only those christians and jews who make war against Islam, it says just "christians and Jews".

I fight Islam and its prophet daily. Should I be killed or just shunned? :popcorn:

5:33 This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land.

Don't bother to tell me that "fight" means a physical battle against muslims, because it specifically says Allah and Muhammad; one of which is invisible and the other is dead. I have checked with an arabic speaker and the verse can be read as ideological fight. Also, don't bother sending me verse 5:32 and 5:34 because it will just make me laugh at how crazily the Quran is written and I will only ask you, once again; "WHY write something when you don't mean it?" :ahem:

Writing what you mean is one of the first lessons you learn in literary expression. If I wrote essays at university like Allah has written the Quran, I would get a big fat "Fail".

The verse says "those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there" do you hasten about the earth to do corruption there?
this verse refers to those who commit armed robbery or such and this crime is known by islamic jurists as "haraba".
http://www.cii.gov.pk/infoservice/meeting164.asp
http://www.geo.tv/zs/gb_transcript_e.asp
http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/veiled4allah/003000.php

Your evidence?

I'll come back to this later

Noone can be "completely free" of negative emotions, or we wouldn't be humans. Accepting oneself as one is, with all one's imperfections is more about love than is the fruitless and impossible task of "getting rid of them"..

Then love cannot save you. people who claim salvation through love are all sinners according to this new alleged covenant. If you cannot free yourself then all that remains for you is the blood of the "sacrifice".

moose7237

July 30th 2007, 02:51 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Thanks for the link, but it states that in the KJV God is called omnipotent. Now what about omniscience and omnipresence?

Strawman fallacy :ahem:

How so??? You state that God loves all, does he not love drunks? A lot of teens party to get drunk, are they not loved as well?

Nonesense ..... non-alcoholics - which is the majority of people - dislike the feeling of intoxication so we take care not to drink more than the right amount which, for me, is one glass. My pastor is a wine connoisseur and I've never seen him even the slightest bit drunk. My parents also :ahem:

And what about alcoholics??? They do it to get drunk. A majority of teens that drink, I'm quite sure, but I do not have the statistics, do it to get drunk? Are they not loved by God?

THey are - they go to jail :ahem:

What if they never get caught? What does God do to them in terms of punishment? Or does he just let them go and love them?

The friend who went to antarctica got a big "rush" when she went and even after the neurotransmitters calmed down she remained a changed person because of it.

In which way was she changed? In islam people that change do so to be morally Good if they truly do it for Islam and Allah. To some people it is permanent, like the 2 family members I told you about. How are "hormones" being applied in those situations?

And that is the problem.

LOL!!! How is that a problem??? Islam tells us not to screw up, where Christianity, you screw up and then you are "born again." :lol:

argumentum ad nauseum.

huh??? Even that moral development theory site you gave me stated that you need laws for a functioning society.

And this is where you have it all wrong about the NT. The NT is NOT like the Koran - it is not a book full of rules and laws; it is a finger pointing to the proverbial "moon". The end point of Christianity is not the text but the experience of the Living Christ.

Ya ok, Jesus gives us some commands, lets just ignore them :lol: You need rules, even Jesus gave rules. Rules are what transform us, and what guide us to "love". What is the difference between right and wrong without rules?

Now you have been dodging many of my arguments. Firstly, please answer where the love is when jesus was tortured on the cross. And answer, why there are so many infants that have diseases, and they die at such an early age, where the love in that is.

Narnian

July 30th 2007, 11:30 PM

At any given moment there are people at different stages of spiritual development. the law is for the ones who have not developed enough to guide them. For those who are developed the law will be inside them, a part of their personality.

Show me the reference where Islamic law is only for those with less maturity. This is the first I have heard of it, and you are the first muslim to ever claim this. :lol:

If you follow Islamic law when you are less mature ..... and then follow it when you are mature, then it's just one and the same thing, and what you are saying, then it pure "fog". You have to abide by Islamic rules and laws to gain Allah's "love" and to gain salvation.

I doubt that. I think that you have relied on your imam to explain to you and he didn't do a good job.

Guess what? I didn't rely on her. Now what? I am being totally honest with you, and not saying this to "win" .... in all honesty, and this is what God wants, I find the Quran devoid of anything joyful, inspiring or uplifting. I feel oppressed when I read it.

The Quran was revealed in parts, each part was on a specific occasion. If you want to understand the verses you can find the explanation in other verses of the Quran or in the Hadith.

So why keep teachings in the book that says it is for all times and all places, if they have no relevance for today?

Why bother putting it in there if it's only for, say, the year 666AD?

I personally know two brothers who were born from a muslim father and a christian mother. one of the boys was raised as a muslim and the other as a christian. I feel sorry for the christian kid but what can I do?

One of your inductive fallacies again. You evaded my point and gave me a one-off example. Islam does not permit muslim women to marry jewish, hindu or christian men - yes or no? And if you married a christian woman, would Islam permit her to bring up that child as a christian? yes or no?

Plus you didn't answer my points. Why did Allah put; "Muslims take not Jews and Christians as friends" if he doesn't really mean it to be there today?

It's clear enough for me and I'm not confused. If you choose to shut yourself to it and not to understand it then no one can help you.

You still have not answered me; "why put a verse in there is you don't mean it"? Why bother wasting ink and trees on a sentence that is just "fluff" or "padding"?

Perhaps YOU are the one who is "shut off" ..... "shut off" to these contradictory and gaping holes in Allah's verbal expression, and consequently to the falseness of the claims the Quran makes about itself. :ahem:

The verse says "those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there"

The word is fasadan.

http://www.islam101.com/selections/glossaryEF.html
Fasad, literally 'corruption', in Qur'anic terminology, means creating disorder and corruption on earth by following a path other than God's. Islam maintains that true peace and happiness emanate only through the observance of God's commands and through making a conscious effort to see that His laws alone are implemented in every sphere of life. Fasad occurs when man violates God's laws and disobeys Him. Fasad may therefore be partial as well as total; partial when one disregards God's law in one aspect of life while acknowledging His sovereignty in other spheres.

I do not follow the path of this god Allah - I do NOT follow Islamic laws or rules, plus I tell people that Muhammad was Satan, or at best a criminal. I fall into the category that 5:33 is speaking about, as do millions of others.

Furthermore, in most english translations, it is translated as mischief:

mis·chief –noun
1. conduct or activity that playfully causes petty annoyance.
2. a tendency or disposition to tease, vex, or annoy.
3. a vexatious or annoying action.
4. harm or trouble, esp. as a result of an agent or cause.
5. an injury or evil caused by a person or other agent or cause.
6. a cause or source of harm, evil, or annoyance.

Almost everyone is a petty annoyance to someone.

Let's check the Tasfirs;

Meaning of Mischief
In his Tafsir, As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented, ...

<And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers.">

"They are the hypocrites. As for, ...
<"Do not make mischief on the earth">, that is DISBELIEF AND ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE." Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement, ...
<And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,">, means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is DISOBEYING Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, OR COMMANDS THAT ALLAH BE DISOBEYED, he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and in the heavens is ensured (and earned) through obedience (to Allah)." Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], pp. 131-132; online edition; capital emphasis ours)
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=1002

Types of Mischief that the Hypocrites commit
Ibn Jarir said, "The hypocrites commit mischief on earth BY DISOBEYING THEIR LORD on it and continuing in the prohibited acts. They also ABANDON WHAT ALLAH MADE OBLIGATORY AND DOUBT HIS RELIGION, even though He does not accept a deed from anyone EXCEPT WITH FAITH IN HIS RELIGION and certainty of its truth. The hypocrites also lie to the believers by saying contrary to the doubt and hesitation their hearts harbor. They give as much aid as they can, against Allah's loyal friends, and support those who deny Allah, His Books and His Messengers. This is how the hypocrites commit mischief on earth, while thinking that they are doing righteous work on earth."
The statement by Ibn Jarir is true, taking the disbelievers as friends is one of the categories of mischief on the earth... (Ibid., p. 132; online edition; capital emphasis ours)

I doubt and disobey Allah all the time. I am a "fasadan".

In conclusion, fasadan can refer to anyone, so it's doors wide open for killing and maiming and banishing, depending on the level of sadism of the followers of twisted god Allah.

No wonder that 20% of muslims support the indiscriminate killing of innocents for Islam (see the latest Pew research stats), and this makes 280,000,000 muslims who would support killing.

All because of the legacy Muhammad left.

Then love cannot save you. people who claim salvation through love are all sinners according to this new alleged covenant. If you cannot free yourself then all that remains for you is the blood of the "sacrifice".

You cannot free yourself - God comes to you in Grace and you are freed. That's the whole point of the NT.

Christianity is centred not on laws and rules, but on the Living Christ. Nothing we can do, nothing we can do about transforming our mind or working on ourselves can lead to God extending his Grace to us. So, in Islam and its concern with one’s rule and law following, with fasting, Haj and ascetism as a spiritual path, ends up as a form of self inflation, a form of egoism, a form of self aggrandisement. Only in Christianity can one get outside of oneself, and give up concern with one's own states, with God's "approval", with sin and unwanted emotions.

"The test of obervance of Christ's teachings is our consciouss of our failure to attain an ideal perfection cannot be seen; all we can see is the extent of our deviation.
A man who professes an external law is like someone standing in the light of a lantern fixed to a post. It is light all round him, but there is nowhere further for to walk. A man who professes the teachings of Christ is like a man carrying a lantern before him on a long, or not so long, pole; the light is in front of him, always lighting up fresh ground and always encouraging him to walk further."

Weil concluded that two great forces rule the universe; gravity and grace. Gravity causes one body to attract other bodies so that it continually enlarges by absorbing more and more of the universe into itself. Something like this same force operates in human beings. We too want to expand, to aquire, to swell in significance. The desire to 'be as gods' after all, led Amdam and Eve to rebel.
Emotionally, Weil concluded, we humans operate by laws analogous to those of phycisal gravity. Grace is the only exception." Most of us remain trapped in the gravitational field of self-love, and thus we 'fill up all the fissures through which grace might pass." (Philip Yancey)

Get hold of this book, if only for entertainment:
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Amazing-About-Grace/dp/0310245656/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7330625-1596053?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185851490&sr=8-1

Narnian

July 31st 2007, 12:04 AM

Thanks for the link, but it states that in the KJV God is called omnipotent. Now what about omniscience and omnipresence?

So you went looking in all the translations and finally found ONE mention in the less accurate KJV, and you think Narnian has been bluffing you. Let's have a look in the Greek;

pantokrator from (3956) and (2904)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pantokrator 3:914,466
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pan-tok-rat'-ore Noun Masculine

Definition
he who holds sway over all things the ruler of all almighty: God

usage; Cor2:1 Rev:9

A ruler or having "sway" does not automatically mean Omnipotent which is defined here as:

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

How so??? You state that God loves all, does he not love drunks? A lot of teens party to get drunk, are they not loved as well?

Look up Strawman fallacy in Wiki.

What if they never get caught? What does God do to them in terms of punishment? Or does he just let them go and love them?

Noone who does evil is happy. That in itself is a logical consequence. Don't believe me? Google research they have done on happy people - those who do good are happier by far.

In which way was she changed? In islam people that change do so to be morally Good if they truly do it for Islam and Allah. To some people it is permanent, like the 2 family members I told you about. How are "hormones" being applied in those situations?

Lots of people who do the Haj become terrorists afterwards. What do you make of that? The 9/11 bombers all did the Haj.

Yet I haven't heard of anyone who has done a wilderness tour of Antarctica ... or the pilgrimage of the Camino de Santiago .... or climbed Mt Everest, becoming a terrorist and massacring 100s of people. Explain that. :noid:

LOL!!! How is that a problem??? Islam tells us not to screw up, where Christianity, you screw up and then you are "born again." :lol:

I've lost the source of this comment.

huh??? Even that moral development theory site you gave me stated that you need laws for a functioning society.

well that shows you have not understood it.

Ya ok, Jesus gives us some commands, lets just ignore them :lol: You need rules, even Jesus gave rules. Rules are what transform us, and what guide us to "love". What is the difference between right and wrong without rules?

You cannot get out of this "rule" view of life. While you are stuck in this view, there is no way you will understand anything deeper. Read what I replied to Chabchaba above. Here it is again:

You cannot free yourself - God comes to you in Grace and you are freed. That's the whole point of the NT.

Christianity is centred not on laws and rules, but on the Living Christ. Nothing we can do, nothing we can do about transforming our mind or working on ourselves can lead to God extending his Grace to us. So, in Islam and its concern with one’s rule and law following, with fasting, Haj and ascetism as a spiritual path, ends up as a form of self inflation, a form of egoism, a form of self aggrandisement. Only in Christianity can one get outside of oneself, and give up concern with one's own states, with God's "approval", with sin and unwanted emotions.

"The test of obervance of Christ's teachings is our consciouss of our failure to attain an ideal perfection cannot be seen; all we can see is the extent of our deviation.
A man who professes an external law is like someone standing in the light of a lantern fixed to a post. It is light all round him, but there is nowhere further for to walk. A man who professes the teachings of Christ is like a man carrying a lantern before him on a long, or not so long, pole; the light is in front of him, always lighting up fresh ground and always encouraging him to walk further."

Weil concluded that two great forces rule the universe; gravity and grace. Gravity causes one body to attract other bodies so that it continually enlarges by absorbing more and more of the universe into itself. Something like this same force operates in human beings. We too want to expand, to aquire, to swell in significance. The desire to 'be as gods' after all, led Amdam and Eve to rebel.
Emotionally, Weil concluded, we humans operate by laws analogous to those of phycisal gravity. Grace is the only exception." Most of us remain trapped in the gravitational field of self-love, and thus we 'fill up all the fissures through which grace might pass." (Philip Yancey)

Get hold of this book, if only for entertainment:
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-So-Amazi...5851490&sr=8-1

Now you have been dodging many of my arguments. Firstly, please answer where the love is when jesus was tortured on the cross.

I've told you where it is. If you are not happy with looking for it, and expect me to, with such a slow computer, then why don't you start a new thread and ask for everyone's responses?

And answer, why there are so many infants that have diseases, and they die at such an early age, where the love in that is.

I answered this one very clearly last time :ahem:

Chabchaba

July 31st 2007, 05:56 AM

Show me the reference where Islamic law is only for those with less maturity. This is the first I have heard of it, and you are the first muslim to ever claim this. :lol:

If you follow Islamic law when you are less mature ..... and then follow it when you are mature, then it's just one and the same thing, and what you are saying, then it pure "fog". You have to abide by Islamic rules and laws to gain Allah's "love" and to gain salvation.
everyone follows some kind of rule, internal or external. even your child will grow up with what you taught him being a part of him. You will stop making any kind of rules for him but the rules you gave him as a child will still be there wherever he goes always.

http://www.itaa-net.org/ta/CoreConcepts/CoreConcepts.htm

by the way sharia does not mean law it means path. we see it as a path to be taken not as an end in itself.

Guess what? I didn't rely on her. Now what? I am being totally honest with you, and not saying this to "win" .... in all honesty, and this is what God wants, I find the Quran devoid of anything joyful, inspiring or uplifting. I feel oppressed when I read it.

You did rely on her a lot. your mistaken understanding that Islam says do not ask questions came from her and probably the idea that islam means submission in a slave-like sense came from her too. when you tried to read for yourself you read in the "light" of this information so you got the wrong idea in the end.

So why keep teachings in the book that says it is for all times and all places, if they have no relevance for today?

I did not say it is not relevant today just that you can sometimes misunderstand for some reason like bias, the verse being taken out of context, translation error or any other reason; therefore you can check it with other verses and see what explanation makes sense.

Plus you didn't answer my points. Why did Allah put; "Muslims take not Jews and Christians as friends" if he doesn't really mean it to be there today?

I did answer that. It's still valid when it refers to those who oppress the believers.

The word is fasadan.

[lots of references from dictionaries and commentaries]

In conclusion, fasadan can refer to anyone
The verse refers to a certain meaning about which all the jurists are in agreement: armed robbery. I gave you enough references for that and you went into some extensive search of commentaries and dictionaries. You can just check what the commentary says on that verse :teeth:

You cannot free yourself - God comes to you in Grace and you are freed. That's the whole point of the NT.

what would you think of people who say that they believe in Jesus christ as their saviour and at the same time they commit every sin in the book (by that I mean the sins in the OT like killing, adultery, lying, stealing etc. as well as the ones in the NT like hating). are these people touched by grace? and how do you know?

Narnian

August 1st 2007, 05:00 AM

everyone follows some kind of rule, internal or external. even your child will grow up with what you taught him being a part of him. You will stop making any kind of rules for him but the rules you gave him as a child will still be there wherever he goes always.

We follow secular laws and rules, but we don't follow religious laws. That's the big difference. Secular laws change and adapt with the times and with people, religious laws don't. Secular laws are invented by humans for humans, but religious laws are invented by Allah. You do not need a book dropped out of a cloud to tell you what rational, normal humans can work out themselves with their God-given brains. The problem with Sharia "path" is that it is fixed and apparently sent from Allah.

You did rely on her a lot. your mistaken understanding that Islam says do not ask questions came from her and probably the idea that islam means submission in a slave-like sense came from her too. when you tried to read for yourself you read in the "light" of this information so you got the wrong idea in the end.

Who cares what she said. What I say is that the Quran is badly written and Allah has atrocious skills in verbal expression. He says one thing and then immediately says another. Then, to make matters even crazier, he goes on to repeat himself, over 1000 times, that his teachings are CLEAR! :ahem: :lol:

I did answer that. It's still valid when it refers to those who oppress the believers.

Alfitnah does not mean "oppress" - its meaning is based on 'alchemy', which is a process of destroying the impurities in a metal. It is used to mean "unbelief" but can be stretched to mean intimidation and harassment. Meaning that you can kill almost anyone who is not a muslim, especially if you were a paranoid sort of person.

Fitnah has been used in the Quran in two meanings. It refers, firstly, to persecution, to a situation in which the believers are harassed and intimidated because of their religious convictions. Secondly, it refers to the state of affairs wherein the object of obedience is other than the One True God.

So you can massacre your fellow humans if they;
1. harass you
2. intimidate you
3. don't believe in Allah

Let's have a look at the word oppression, how it is translated:

al-Baqarah 002:191

Pickthal And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.

Arberry And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. Shakir And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter,

Sarwar Slay them wherever you may catch them and expel them from the place from which they expelled you. The sin of disbelief in God is greater than committing murder.

Khalifa You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder.

Hilali/Khan And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.

H/K/Saheeh And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing.

George Sale And kill them wherever ye find them, and turn them out of that whereof they have dispossessed you, for temptation to idolatry is more grievous than slaughter:

The door is wide open for muslims to commit mass murder.

The verse refers to a certain meaning about which all the jurists are in agreement: armed robbery. I gave you enough references for that and you went into some extensive search of commentaries and dictionaries. You can just check what the commentary says on that verse :teeth:

Taqiyya

what would you think of people who say that they believe in Jesus christ as their saviour and at the same time they commit every sin in the book (by that I mean the sins in the OT like killing, adultery, lying, stealing etc. as well as the ones in the NT like hating). are these people touched by grace? and how do you know?

Augustine said; "Love God and do as ye will" .... meaning that love is protective. We are ALL sinners and we are all imperfect and inadequate, but we sin less when we have love in our hearts.

Chabchaba

August 1st 2007, 07:08 AM

We follow secular laws and rules, but we don't follow religious laws. That's the big difference. Secular laws change and adapt with the times and with people, religious laws don't. Secular laws are invented by humans for humans, but religious laws are invented by Allah. You do not need a book dropped out of a cloud to tell you what rational, normal humans can work out themselves with their God-given brains. The problem with Sharia "path" is that it is fixed and apparently sent from Allah.

One problem with your secular laws is that they are based on the judeo christian understanding of sin. they are changed only to become more accomodating as people become more tolerant in their defintion of sin. even then they try to justify themselves by saying that the bible was misunderstood. like the parts of the bible which condone slavery or the parts which do not tolerate homosexualty. The bible is still the book which people derive their "secular" laws from but only with a different understanding.
saying that they are made by humans for humans is nothing more than self deception which you are using to justify being christian and saying that you love the sinners while at the same time expressing your hatred towards sin and sinners by sending them to prison, the man-made equivalent of God's hell and in some christian countries even killing sinners.

Alfitnah does not mean "oppress" - its meaning is based on 'alchemy', which is a process of destroying the impurities in a metal. It is used to mean "unbelief" but can be stretched to mean intimidation and harassment. Meaning that you can kill almost anyone who is not a muslim, especially if you were a paranoid sort of person.

Fitnah has been used in the Quran in two meanings. It refers, firstly, to persecution, to a situation in which the believers are harassed and intimidated because of their religious convictions. Secondly, it refers to the state of affairs wherein the object of obedience is other than the One True God.

So you can massacre your fellow humans if they;
1. harass you
2. intimidate you
3. don't believe in Allah

Let's have a look at the word oppression, how it is translated:

al-Baqarah 002:191

Pickthal And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.

Arberry And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. Shakir And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter,

Sarwar Slay them wherever you may catch them and expel them from the place from which they expelled you. The sin of disbelief in God is greater than committing murder.

Khalifa You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder.

Hilali/Khan And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.

H/K/Saheeh And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing.

George Sale And kill them wherever ye find them, and turn them out of that whereof they have dispossessed you, for temptation to idolatry is more grievous than slaughter:

The door is wide open for muslims to commit mass murder.

The word has nothing to do with alchemy at all.
what do you see when you read the context? there are many words in many languages that can mean all sorts of things, but when you read this verse all the translations say "expel them from wherever the have expelled you" or something with exactly the same meaning, so you can see clearly what is meant by fitna here. if you read any commentary you'll find exactly the same explanation there.

Taqiyya

So all the muslims including me, the writers of the websites I have quoted and the islamic jurists are trying to decieve you so that you will tolerate islam or even convert and get brainwashed. talking about paranoid people :lol:

Augustine said; "Love God and do as ye will" .... meaning that love is protective. We are ALL sinners and we are all imperfect and inadequate, but we sin less when we have love in our hearts.

Notice that you are saying "we sin less". now what is the definition of sin?
Sin is a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation.
In monotheistic religions, the code of conduct is determined by God. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienative might be termed "sinful".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin
I don't know if you have another definition for this word but I think that you agree with me that there is some kind of code of conduct to be followed, which includes things to do like charity, and things not to do like immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienative conduct.

The bible itself ehoes this concept by saying that:
Ephesians 2:9-10 Not of works, so that no one might boast; For we are his workmanship; Created in Christ Jesus on the basis of good works which God foreordained that we should walk in them.

The good works are what God guides you to do through his love. God will create us as righteous people just like He created Jesus Christ into a perfect man.
when you talk about your salvation through grace and love while sinning, you are merely making empty boasts and removing yourself away from God's love and guidance. this is no different from boasting about good works.

Love is protective and God protects the faithful from sin just like he protected Joseph from temptation and He saves and forgives trespassers like he forgave Jonah and saved him. That is how God shows his love for us.

Narnian

August 1st 2007, 08:09 AM

One problem with your secular laws is that they are based on the judeo christian understanding of sin.

Roman Law is based on Greek philosophy.

..... Rome’s most important contribution to European legal culture was not the enactment of well-drafted statutes, but the emergence of a class of professional jurists and of a legal science. This was achieved in a gradual process of applying the scientific methods of Greek philosophy to the subject of law—a subject which the Greeks themselves never treated as a science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Law#Origins

saying that they are made by humans for humans is nothing more than self deception

Oh, so who created secular law then? :twitch:

which you are using to justify being christian and saying that you love the sinners while at the same time expressing your hatred towards sin and sinners by sending them to prison, the man-made equivalent of God's hell and in some christian countries even killing sinners.

Sending them to jail is not "hatred" but "logical consequences". You can't have a murderer or a pedophile running around the streets.

The word has nothing to do with alchemy at all.

Oh? So all those scholars websites are wrong. Don't you Sudanese speak arabic? :noid:

Fitnah ^ Arab-English Lexicon, Lane, E.: a burning of fire, a melting of (metals) in order to distinguish the bad from the good, a means wherby the condition of aman is evinced in respect of good or evil, punishment, chastisement, conflict among people, faction and sedition, discord, dissension, difference of opinions, a misleading, causing to err, seduction, temptation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna#_note-0

The word (fitna or fitnah ) is an Arabic word the dictionary meaning of which is to find out the purity or impurity of precious metals like gold or silver by melting it on fire.
http://www.as-sidq.org/fitnah.html

what do you see when you read the context? there are many words in many languages that can mean all sorts of things, but when you read this verse all the translations say "expel them from wherever the have expelled you" or something with exactly the same meaning, so you can see clearly what is meant by fitna here. if you read any commentary you'll find exactly the same explanation there.

the 2.219 verse clearly says that mass murder of humans is better than Fitna, which, as we have seen can mean a whole range of things, and which almost ANYONE can fit into.

Notice that you are saying "we sin less". now what is the definition of sin?

Big sins and little sins are the same. For example, my son sometimes tells petty lies and he says; "but it's just a little lie" and I tell him that little lies grow into big lies. The same goes for everything. But we are all human and we succumb to sin, mostly small issues.

So, are you gonig to now tell me that you are free of sin? Does Islam get rid of all your sins?

The bible itself ehoes this concept by saying that:
Ephesians 2:9-10 Not of works, so that no one might boast; For we are his workmanship; Created in Christ Jesus on the basis of good works which God foreordained that we should walk in them.

Good Works has nothing to do with following The Law, if that's what you're trying to say.

Chabchaba

August 2nd 2007, 05:33 AM

Roman Law is based on Greek philosophy.

..... Rome’s most important contribution to European legal culture was not the enactment of well-drafted statutes, but the emergence of a class of professional jurists and of a legal science. This was achieved in a gradual process of applying the scientific methods of Greek philosophy to the subject of law—a subject which the Greeks themselves never treated as a science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Law#Origins

And since christianity also has a lot of major concepts which were borrowed from greek philosophy you cannot dissociate christianity from secular laws.
Western laws are based on the judeo-christian concept of sin and that concept was greatly influenced by greek culture and philosophy.
It's no coincidence that many of the most influential people in the history of christianity were lawyers trained in secular law.

Oh, so who created secular law then? :twitch:

people who were influenced by the concept of sin.

Sending them to jail is not "hatred" but "logical consequences". You can't have a murderer or a pedophile running around the streets.

why not turn the other cheek in love? are you saying that the christian concepts of love and forgiveness do not work in real life? don't you think that these people will respond more to love than they respond to punishment? Yet they recieve none if any, even psychological counseling in prisons is not enough, so it's clearly just a matter of lawmakers wanting to punish these people and thereby becoming a part of the destructive life script of these criminals.

click on these links to psychology websites and try to relate the simple psychological concepts of Transactional Analysis to your ideas about religion and life in general.
http://www.claudesteiner.com/core.htm
http://frogsandprinces.dawntreader.net/scripts.html

Oh? So all those scholars websites are wrong. Don't you Sudanese speak arabic? :noid:

Fitnah ^ Arab-English Lexicon, Lane, E.: a burning of fire, a melting of (metals) in order to distinguish the bad from the good, a means wherby the condition of aman is evinced in respect of good or evil, punishment, chastisement, conflict among people, faction and sedition, discord, dissension, difference of opinions, a misleading, causing to err, seduction, temptation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna#_note-0

The word (fitna or fitnah ) is an Arabic word the dictionary meaning of which is to find out the purity or impurity of precious metals like gold or silver by melting it on fire.
http://www.as-sidq.org/fitnah.html

the 2.219 verse clearly says that mass murder of humans is better than Fitna, which, as we have seen can mean a whole range of things, and which almost ANYONE can fit into.

Check this article which gives a critique on the translations of Quran and what's wrong with some of them and also mentions the wrong translations of "fitna".
interestingly someone comments on the article calling it taqiyya. It seems that in some people's minds islam is nothing but a big disinformation conspiracy :smile:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090035

Big sins and little sins are the same. For example, my son sometimes tells petty lies and he says; "but it's just a little lie" and I tell him that little lies grow into big lies. The same goes for everything. But we are all human and we succumb to sin, mostly small issues.

We all sin and God is most forgiving. many people do big sins too and they also can be forgiven just by asking for forgiveness, because there is no limit to God's mercy. That does not mean that we should sin all our lives and believe that it's ok because we have faith and we are therefore "saved".

So, are you gonig to now tell me that you are free of sin? Does Islam get rid of all your sins?

Yes. Through asking God for forgiveness He will erase all your sins. even christians say in their prayer "forgive us for our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"
In the Qur’an Allah has described the Believers as “those who avoid major sins and acts of indecencies and when they are angry they forgive.” (al-Shura 42:37)
now if we are expected to forgive in spite of our human weakness, God is more forgiving.

Good Works has nothing to do with following The Law, if that's what you're trying to say.
The law includes many things, like worship God, do not lie, do not steal, honour your parents, etc. and when you do these you are following the law whether you admit it or not. when you don't follow them it shows that there is something wrong with your faith and it shows clearly that your claims about grace are nothing more than empty boasts.
If you follow them willingly it shows that the law has become inside you because of your faith and that you have truly submitted yourself to God, while if you follow them because you want to avoid consequences it shows that your faith needs some work and you need to open yourself up to God's guidance.
I think that's what Paul meant when he said:
Romans 3:27-31
Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

The law remains valid even though you are justified by faith. Jusitification through faith is not just a static concept about grace and love but a dynamic process of self improvement where your internal changes reflect outwardly as more dedication to the law.

Narnian

August 2nd 2007, 10:04 AM

And since christianity also has a lot of major concepts which were borrowed from greek philosophy you cannot dissociate christianity from secular laws.

Even if it is derived from Christianity (which it isn't), it is still secular law and not "God's Laws" like in Islam, and, I repeat, unlike Islam, Roman law is adaptable and changeable, not set in stone. I already said this and you then attempted to point out that this was its fault. Now you've changed tack and are trying to tell me that Christian "law" is just the same as Islamic law :ahem: I don't think you have an answer.

click on these links to psychology websites and try to relate the simple psychological concepts of Transactional Analysis to your ideas about religion and life in general.
http://www.claudesteiner.com/core.htm
http://frogsandprinces.dawntreader.net/scripts.html

If you're into TA, then you must be seriously questioning Islam, because Islam comes from a child ego state and it is made for the child ego state with Allah as parent who dishes out all your little rules and superstitions and you're told that Allah knows best.

In contrast the NT is for the adult; that's why Paul says that we are now "grown up sons" and you use your grey matter, not a book.

Check this article which gives a critique on the translations of Quran and what's wrong with some of them and also mentions the wrong translations of "fitna".
interestingly someone comments on the article calling it taqiyya. It seems that in some people's minds islam is nothing but a big disinformation conspiracy :smile:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090035

I'm sorry, but it IS taqiyya. Lanes Lexicon is one of the most trusted sources and the root is alchemy; the separating of good from bad metals. Fitna means cleansing of sinful people - Allah tells you its better to murder them in 2.191 than have them hanging around.

Yes, the disinformation from Islam is huge. I know this from having been an insider. Everyone is into pretence and show - even muslims towards muslims.

Is arabic your mother tongue or not? Are you Sudanese? If you are, have you heard this story (that my ex used to tell me) - "If you only have enough money to buy either a meal or a new set of clothes, choose the new clothes. Because people cannot see what is inside your stomach, but they can see your clothes". Is this familiar? I think that little teaching is a good demonstration of all the little ways that Taqiyya is infused into every corner of Islamic culture.

We all sin and God is most forgiving. many people do big sins too and they also can be forgiven just by asking for forgiveness, because there is no limit to God's mercy. That does not mean that we should sin all our lives and believe that it's ok because we have faith and we are therefore "saved".

You didn't answer my question; Does Islam get rid of all your sins? As in; does the "path" of Islam ie in following rules and laws, free you from sin? And; Are you free of sin? ... and one more question; Are you following Islamic Law perfectly right now?

The law includes many things, like worship God, do not lie, do not steal, honour your parents, etc. and when you do these you are following the law whether you admit it or not. when you don't follow them it shows that there is something wrong with your faith and it shows clearly that your claims about grace are nothing more than empty boasts.

So if we have empty boats, then what do you say about Islam producing such violent terrorists who want to kill and maim as many innocents as they possibly can. What do you say of the Beslan muslims who packed bombs full of nails so they would pierce as many little children as possible? What of the Bali and London bombers? They all - and the whole long list - followed Islamic Law perfectly, did the Haj and prayed and didn't eat ham. What happened there? And what of the 20% of muslims who believe that killing innocent civilians, ie you and me, is "good"?

Finally, can you answer why, if Allah's teachings are so perfect, is the muslims world a shambles?

If you follow them willingly it shows that the law has become inside you because of your faith and that you have truly submitted yourself to God, while if you follow them because you want to avoid consequences it shows that your faith needs some work and you need to open yourself up to God's guidance.

I don't follow Jewish/Islamic law at ALL. I eat ham, bacon, I don't wash before eating, I never fast, drink wine, I work on the sabbath, I would refuse to stone or whip adulterers, I don't do set prayer sequences, I talk to men, we have bank loans and pay interest, while we invest and harnass interest, I don't circumcise, I don't sacrifice any animal or do a Haj to erase my sins, I eat during ramadan, I put yeast in the bread I make during passover; the list is enormous.

Now, if your theory is correct; that I would follow Islamic or Jewish law naturally once I reached maturity, why am I not doing it, even though I have faith in Jesus Christ and love God?

The law remains valid even though you are justified by faith. Jusitification through faith is not just a static concept about grace and love but a dynamic process of self improvement where your internal changes reflect outwardly as more dedication to the law.

Romans is all about Christ being the replacement for the law. Paul uses logical deduction to argue this point; he is not imparting rules!

You are reading the NT like you do the Quran. Unlike the Quran, the NT is not a list of rules. It is a series of stories and logical arguments with Greek literary devices like euphemism and hyperbole. The meaning is in the medium. The truth of the story is in the telling, the hearing, and the living of the story, not the words themselves. The end point of Christianity is not the book but the experience of the Living Christ in the herenow. That's why Paul Tillich called the Kingdom of God; "the eternal now." This is why Christian faith has always had a very strong emphasis on how life is being lived now on earth. Christians pray, "Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Col 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom

Chabchaba

August 2nd 2007, 11:55 AM

Even if it is derived from Christianity (which it isn't), it is still secular law and not "God's Laws" like in Islam, and, I repeat, unlike Islam, Roman law is adaptable and changeable, not set in stone. I already said this and you then attempted to point out that this was its fault. Now you've changed tack and are trying to tell me that Christian "law" is just the same as Islamic law :ahem: I don't think you have an answer.

They are called secular laws but they are based in judeo christian tradition. The problem is in the self deception of trying to dissociate christianity's gentle love and forgiveness from the harshness of these laws, allowing you to keep a pretense of kindness and forgiveness even though your lives are the direct opposite.

If you're into TA, then you must be seriously questioning Islam, because Islam comes from a child ego state and it is made for the child ego state with Allah as parent who dishes out all your little rules and superstitions and you're told that Allah knows best.

In contrast the NT is for the adult; that's why Paul says that we are now "grown up sons" and you use your grey matter, not a book.

The Quran uses transactions on multiple levels.

I'm sorry, but it IS taqiyya. Lanes Lexicon is one of the most trusted sources and the root is alchemy; the separating of good from bad metals. Fitna means cleansing of sinful people - Allah tells you its better to murder them in 2.191 than have them hanging around.

Yes, the disinformation from Islam is huge. I know this from having been an insider. Everyone is into pretence and show - even muslims towards muslims.

You just have a problem in understanding the way eastern people think. You would have the same idea if you deal with any eastern cultures and not just the islamic culture, because you can't stop yourself from viewing the world through the western guilt culture paradigm.

There is no attempt of disinformation and if there was there would be no way for the correct information to reach people as many millions of muslims find information about Islam from the internet. besides what is on the internet is itself based on what's in books. where do you think people go to find the correct information?

Is arabic your mother tongue or not? Are you Sudanese? If you are, have you heard this story (that my ex used to tell me) - "If you only have enough money to buy either a meal or a new set of clothes, choose the new clothes. Because people cannot see what is inside your stomach, but they can see your clothes". Is this familiar? I think that little teaching is a good demonstration of all the little ways that Taqiyya is infused into every corner of Islamic culture.

Arabic is my mother tongue.
what people say here is eat what you like but wear what people like. The idea is that you should enjoy the food you like because it's you who is eating and no one else is involved, but you should wear what other people like because it's they who see it not you. (unless, of course, you're the kind who keeps looking into windows everywhere to see your reflection :smile:)

by the way there is no single arab culture, each arab country has its own distinct culture and even the dialects are not all mutually intelligible. What you think of as the arab culture is just a stereotype which has almost nothing to do with reality.

You didn't answer my question; Does Islam get rid of all your sins? As in; does the "path" of Islam ie in following rules and laws, free you from sin? And; Are you free of sin? ... and one more question; Are you following Islamic Law perfectly right now?

I am not following Islamic Law perfectly but I'm trying. I know that God will forgive all my sins as long as I do not join any other in worship but I don't take that as a permission to leave the law, and I don't feel that it has removed me away from salvation or made me boast about my salvation through works.

So if we have empty boats, then what do you say about Islam producing such violent terrorists who want to kill and maim as many innocents as they possibly can. What do you say of the Beslan muslims who packed bombs full of nails so they would pierce as many little children as possible? What of the Bali and London bombers? They all - and the whole long list - followed Islamic Law perfectly, did the Haj and prayed and didn't eat ham. What happened there? And what of the 20% of muslims who believe that killing innocent civilians, ie you and me, is "good"?

Finally, can you answer why, if Allah's teachings are so perfect, is the muslims world a shambles?
check this link to see how "islamic" terrorism has developed. It is not Islamic just like the IRA terrorism is not "catholic terrorism". by the way, do you think that the christian terrorists were not sinners because they were justified by faith when they killed innocent people?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1666759/posts

I don't follow Jewish/Islamic law at ALL. I eat ham, bacon, I don't wash before eating, I never fast, drink wine, I work on the sabbath, I would refuse to stone or whip adulterers, I don't do set prayer sequences, I talk to men, we have bank loans and pay interest, while we invest and harnass interest, I don't circumcise, I don't sacrifice any animal or do a Haj to erase my sins, I eat during ramadan, I put yeast in the bread I make during passover; the list is enormous.

Now, if your theory is correct; that I would follow Islamic or Jewish law naturally once I reached maturity, why am I not doing it, even though I have faith in Jesus Christ and love God?

I didn't say that faith will make you follow islamic or jewish law naturally. I said that it will make you follow the law which you have faith in. You have faith in a certain law which you have made for yourself and that is what you are following. the degree of your adherence to this law reflects the ammount of faith you have.
For me it's islamic law for you it's something else.

And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ. (Quran 005.048 )

Romans is all about Christ being the replacement for the law. Paul uses logical deduction to argue this point; he is not imparting rules!

You are reading the NT like you do the Quran. Unlike the Quran, the NT is not a list of rules. It is a series of stories and logical arguments with Greek literary devices like euphemism and hyperbole. The meaning is in the medium. The truth of the story is in the telling, the hearing, and the living of the story, not the words themselves. The end point of Christianity is not the book but the experience of the Living Christ in the herenow. That's why Paul Tillich called the Kingdom of God; "the eternal now." This is why Christian faith has always had a very strong emphasis on how life is being lived now on earth. Christians pray, "Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Col 2:20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. 3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom
Paul is not giving rules because they are already there. Are you living these words now? Do you have perfect compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience? these are what comes with faith. this is the law that you believe in and try to abide by and when you admit that you have failed in it, you are in fact admitting that you have sinned and failed in living up to your laws.
Don't talk to me about acceptance because if you believe in justification through faith then how can you believe you will be justified when you can't live up to the claims which you make about your faith?
what difference is there between you and those who claim salvation by their works when they are sinners and you who claim salvation by faith and love and you sin by hating and failing to forgive?
or is your covenant just about faith in blood sacrifice?

Narnian

August 2nd 2007, 10:43 PM

]They are called secular laws but they are based in judeo christian tradition. The problem is in the self deception of trying to dissociate christianity's gentle love and forgiveness from the harshness of these laws, allowing you to keep a pretense of kindness and forgiveness even though your lives are the direct opposite.

I think this quote from Philip Yancey will address what you are saying:

"The church works best as a force of resistance, a counterblanace to consuming power of the state. The cozier it gets with government, the more watered-down its message becomes. The gospel itself changes as it devolves into civil religion. Aristotle's lofty ethics, Alasdair MacIntyre reminds us, had no place fora good man showing love to a bad man - in other words, had no place for a gospel of grace.
In sum, the state must always water down the absoltue quality of Jesus' commands and turn them into a form of external morality - precisely the opposite of the gospel of grace. Jaques Ellul goes so far as to say the New Testament teaches no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian ethic." It commands conversion and then this; "Be perfect ... as your heavenly Father is perfect." Read the Sermon on the Mount and try to imagine any government enacting that set of laws.
A state government can shut down stores and theatres on Sunday, but it cannot compel worship. It can arrest and punish KKK murderers but cannot cure their hatred, much less teach them love. It can pass laws making divorce more difficult but cannot force husband to love their wives and wives their husbands. It can give subsidies to the poor but cannot force the rich to show them compassion and justice. It can ban adultery but not lust, theft but not covetousness, cheating but not pride. It can encourage virtue but not holiness."

Roman law is ever evolving, adaptable and can be changed without "wrath of God" because it's not tied to God at all.

The Quran uses transactions on multiple levels.

As a parent I can tell you that if you speak down to a child, they will act more like a child, whereas if you speak to them on a higher level, they begin to act in tune with that level. So Allah obviously hasn't been a parent to know this secret. The NT, on the other hand, speaks to people as though they are mature already. Because we all have access to that part in our brains, and when someone speaks to that part it is encouraged.

You just have a problem in understanding the way eastern people think. You would have the same idea if you deal with any eastern cultures and not just the islamic culture, because you can't stop yourself from viewing the world through the western guilt culture paradigm.

You will have to explain further. Furthermore, I was immersed in "eastern' culture for 9 years and I do know how you guys think :wink: Disinformation is rife .... even in your posts here :lol:

There is no attempt of disinformation and if there was there would be no way for the correct information to reach people as many millions of muslims find information about Islam from the internet. besides what is on the internet is itself based on what's in books. where do you think people go to find the correct information?

So you disagree with Lane's Lexicon?

what people say here is eat what you like but wear what people like. The idea is that you should enjoy the food you like because it's you who is eating and no one else is involved, but you should wear what other people like because it's they who see it not you. QUOTE]

I haven't heard of that one.

[QUOTE]by the way there is no single arab culture, each arab country has its own distinct culture and even the dialects are not all mutually intelligible.

I totally agree. Even the arabic differs hugely.

What you think of as the arab culture is just a stereotype which has almost nothing to do with reality.

I am aware of this.

check this link to see how "islamic" terrorism has developed. It is not Islamic just like the IRA terrorism is not "catholic terrorism". by the way, do you think that the christian terrorists were not sinners because they were justified by faith when they killed innocent people?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1666759/posts

The link didn't work. Islamic terrorism has been going on since the time of Muhammad. It is only from a mixture of oil wealth, WMD and smaller and more efficient technology that Muhammad's legacy can be played out to the extent we are now seeing. "Catholic terrorism" was really about marxism and it has no backup in the NT, whereas muslims committting mass murder are following the hundreds of Quranic verses, ie getting rid of fitna in the world, and inspired by Hadithe stories about their hero archetype Muhammad.

I didn't say that faith will make you follow islamic or jewish law naturally. I said that it will make you follow the law which you have faith in.

I only have faith in Jesus Christ - no law. Now what?

And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ. (Quran 005.048 )

Allah did not understand Christianity, plus he made the mistake of thinking a book was dropped out of the clouds to Jesus, when he said he sent Jesus a "kitab". :lol:

Besides, Allah tells you to kill disbelievers or subdue them. He tells you to kill or torture those who fight Allah and Muhammad (which is me). There are 100s of verses calling for killing, maiming and cruelty. Yet if you don't love him and say he was "good" you get thrown into hell! :ahem:

Paul is not giving rules because they are already there.

Prove this to me - that Paul followed a list of rules.

Are you living these words now? Do you have perfect compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience? these are what comes with faith.

Compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience have nothing to do with rules and laws - they are "fruit of the spirit". Read again that Yancey quote above.

Just as you don't have to consult a book of rules to tell you to laugh when you hear something funny, you do not have to follow rules or learn how to be compassionate, kind, humble and gentle; they are natural.

Allah tries to undo what is natural,ie by telling you that he knows better than you and that fighting is prescribed for you, yet you dislike it. Humans don't naturally like to kill each other.

Don't talk to me about acceptance because if you believe in justification through faith then how can you believe you will be justified when you can't live up to the claims which you make about your faith?

Just as I love my own child, despite his flaws, and because of this love he learns to accept himself despite his flaws and has the strength to go beyond them.

what difference is there between you and those who claim salvation by their works when they are sinners and you who claim salvation by faith and love and you sin by hating and failing to forgive?

How can I love and hate at the same time? The 2 are mutally exclusive.

Furthremore, Christianity gives Two Gifts; one is Life herenow (Greek; Zoe) and the other is life in the hereafter. Islam only promises life in the hereafter. Because salvation is herenow Christians seek to make the world a better place, and succeed in most cases.

Here is what CS Lewis says on this;

“But what man, in his natural condition, has not got, is Spiritual life– the higher and different sort of life that exists in God. We use the same word life for both: but if you thought that both must therefore be the same sort of thing, that would be like thinking that the ‘greatness’ of space and the ‘greatness’ of God were the same sort of greatness. In reality, the difference bewteen Biological life and Spiritual life is so important that I’m going to give them two distinct names. The Biological sort which comes to us through Nature, and which (like everything else in Nature) is always tending to run down and decay so that it can only be kept up by incessant subsidies from Nature in the form of air, water, food etc., is Bios. The Spiritual life which is in God from all eternity and which made the whole natural universe, is Zoe. Bios has, to be sure, a certain shadowy or symbolic resemblance to Zoe: but only the sort of semblance there is between a photo and a place, or a statue and a man. A man who changed from having Bios to having Zoe would have gone through as big a change as a statue which changed from being a carved stone to being a real man.

And that is just precisely what Christianity is about. This world is a great sculptor’s shop. We are the statues and there is a rumour going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come to life.”

Beyond Personality
CS Lewis

Chabchaba

August 5th 2007, 07:23 AM

I think this quote from Philip Yancey will address what you are saying:

"The church works best as a force of resistance, a counterblanace to consuming power of the state. The cozier it gets with government, the more watered-down its message becomes. The gospel itself changes as it devolves into civil religion. Aristotle's lofty ethics, Alasdair MacIntyre reminds us, had no place fora good man showing love to a bad man - in other words, had no place for a gospel of grace.
In sum, the state must always water down the absoltue quality of Jesus' commands and turn them into a form of external morality - precisely the opposite of the gospel of grace. Jaques Ellul goes so far as to say the New Testament teaches no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian ethic." It commands conversion and then this; "Be perfect ... as your heavenly Father is perfect." Read the Sermon on the Mount and try to imagine any government enacting that set of laws.
A state government can shut down stores and theatres on Sunday, but it cannot compel worship. It can arrest and punish KKK murderers but cannot cure their hatred, much less teach them love. It can pass laws making divorce more difficult but cannot force husband to love their wives and wives their husbands. It can give subsidies to the poor but cannot force the rich to show them compassion and justice. It can ban adultery but not lust, theft but not covetousness, cheating but not pride. It can encourage virtue but not holiness."

Roman law is ever evolving, adaptable and can be changed without "wrath of God" because it's not tied to God at all.

You have just confirmed my point. The laws are a failed attempt to enforce the morality of the bible. The fact that they have failed does not mean that they are not related to the concept of sin.
The only reason that divorce is made difficult is that it is considered as a sin. abortion is banned in catholic countries because it is considered sinful.
In britain there was a law banning witchcraft which was only abolished in 1951.
The laws change when the church changes and becomes more tolerant.
It is clear that the evolution of the "Roman Law" follows the evolution of the church's concept of sin too closely to be considered "not tied to God at all"

As a parent I can tell you that if you speak down to a child, they will act more like a child, whereas if you speak to them on a higher level, they begin to act in tune with that level. So Allah obviously hasn't been a parent to know this secret. The NT, on the other hand, speaks to people as though they are mature already. Because we all have access to that part in our brains, and when someone speaks to that part it is encouraged.
Tell me you never spoke to your child as a child. The adult in us starts to develops when we have some control over our surrondings. it would be totally useless to speak to a child as an adult when he is not developed enough. Just as useless as giving your baby solid food instead of milk.
The Quran talks to people at multiple levels.

You will have to explain further. Furthermore, I was immersed in "eastern' culture for 9 years and I do know how you guys think :wink: Disinformation is rife .... even in your posts here :lol:

Or maybe you have the wrong idea and you want to reject anything different as being disinformation nad taqiyya. Just open up a little bit because I back up everything with references so maybe the "true" information that you know is wrong and I am right.

So you disagree with Lane's Lexicon?

It does not agree with the common useage of the word. Just like, for example, phobos first had the meaning of "flight," that which is caused by being scared; then, "that which may cause flight,"
eventually in the bible it came to be understood as reverential fear, a completely different concept from the original.
From the context in the verse it clearly shows that fitna is a bad thing, while separating the good from the bad is obviously good so it's obviously not used in that sense. Besides there are many translation which you quoted about fitnah which all agreed on the meaning and you chose the one which translates it as "the sin of disbelief in God" to put in your signature. is that because you trust this translator more or because the others are a part of the huge disiniformation scheme? :lol:

[QUOTE]
what people say here is eat what you like but wear what people like. The idea is that you should enjoy the food you like because it's you who is eating and no one else is involved, but you should wear what other people like because it's they who see it not you. QUOTE]

I haven't heard of that one.

Now you have. :smile:

The link didn't work. Islamic terrorism has been going on since the time of Muhammad. It is only from a mixture of oil wealth, WMD and smaller and more efficient technology that Muhammad's legacy can be played out to the extent we are now seeing. "Catholic terrorism" was really about marxism and it has no backup in the NT, whereas muslims committting mass murder are following the hundreds of Quranic verses, ie getting rid of fitna in the world, and inspired by Hadithe stories about their hero archetype Muhammad.

Try the link again. There is a lot of proof that what is known as islamic terrorism is also mainly based on marxism and baathism which is about arab supremacy and was used as a unifying factor in arab countries where there are sectarian and religious differences.

I only have faith in Jesus Christ - no law. Now what?

you should now be a perfect person because people are originally innocent and only know sin through the law, according to paul's wisdom. if all books of laws are burned today and people stop talking about sin the new generations will grow up to be perfect human beings.:lol:
The truth is:
You believe that there is such a thing as sin and you try to avoid it. this means that you have a law.

when your son lies a small lie you don't talk to him about spiritual growth and how virtue is a fruit of spirit, you explain to him clearly not to lie because it is bad aka sinful. That is a law. call it whatever you want and call it a result of love or whatever, it remains a law.

Allah did not understand Christianity, plus he made the mistake of thinking a book was dropped out of the clouds to Jesus, when he said he sent Jesus a "kitab". :lol:

Besides, Allah tells you to kill disbelievers or subdue them. He tells you to kill or torture those who fight Allah and Muhammad (which is me). There are 100s of verses calling for killing, maiming and cruelty. Yet if you don't love him and say he was "good" you get thrown into hell! :ahem:

can you prove that there was no book dropped from the sky? I believe there is and unless you prove me wrong I will continue to believe that there is. I'm sure that unless I can prove you wrong you will also continue to believe that it did not exist.; it's just a matter of faith.

Prove this to me - that Paul followed a list of rules.

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

These verses clearly state that he followed the law but he considered faith more important.

How can I love and hate at the same time? The 2 are mutally exclusive.

Furthremore, Christianity gives Two Gifts; one is Life herenow (Greek; Zoe) and the other is life in the hereafter. Islam only promises life in the hereafter. Because salvation is herenow Christians seek to make the world a better place, and succeed in most cases.

Here is what CS Lewis says on this;

“But what man, in his natural condition, has not got, is Spiritual life– the higher and different sort of life that exists in God. We use the same word life for both: but if you thought that both must therefore be the same sort of thing, that would be like thinking that the ‘greatness’ of space and the ‘greatness’ of God were the same sort of greatness. In reality, the difference bewteen Biological life and Spiritual life is so important that I’m going to give them two distinct names. The Biological sort which comes to us through Nature, and which (like everything else in Nature) is always tending to run down and decay so that it can only be kept up by incessant subsidies from Nature in the form of air, water, food etc., is Bios. The Spiritual life which is in God from all eternity and which made the whole natural universe, is Zoe. Bios has, to be sure, a certain shadowy or symbolic resemblance to Zoe: but only the sort of semblance there is between a photo and a place, or a statue and a man. A man who changed from having Bios to having Zoe would have gone through as big a change as a statue which changed from being a carved stone to being a real man.

And that is just precisely what Christianity is about. This world is a great sculptor’s shop. We are the statues and there is a rumour going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come to life.”

Beyond Personality
CS Lewis

I can love someone and hate the other. This is proof that love and hate are not mutually exclusive. there are even love hate relationships where love and hate co-exist.
Is there no hate in your heart whatsoever? I don't know you very well, but I think that there is hate in your heart right next to love.

saying that there is higher spiritual life does not prove that there is no need for the law, and the fact that there are secular laws which are based on the christian concepts of sin means that deep in the heart of the christian society, they believe that the laws have not been abolished. The christian society is just looking for a way to apply them without making their hate for sinners evident as such.
In politics this is called plausible denial.

Okieshowedem

August 5th 2007, 05:15 PM

The last book found in the Scriptures states we are to keep the Laws.
Rev.22:14

Now you may be taught by a lying preacher boy that the apostle Shaul ( Paul ) did away with those "OLD Laws".
If you religion has lied to you, please read Acts 21:24.
The choice is simple, will you believe all that the prophets and apostles spoke?
Or will you be a FOOL as the Real messiah stated in Luke 24:25?
The Holy Scriptures tell us that the Laws are forever.
The lying preachers of Satans religions tell us the Laws are nailed to a cross.
You must choose which one you believe, the written Scriptures or your lying preacher who
is paid to tell you lies.

Okieshowedem

technomage

August 5th 2007, 07:02 PM

You must choose which one you believe, the written Scriptures or your lying preacher who is paid to tell you lies.

Or the false prophet (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=97027) who speaks lies in the name of YHVH?

"You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him"

Narnian

August 12th 2007, 09:46 AM

I just have time for 3 of your points

can you prove that there was no book dropped from the sky? I believe there is and unless you prove me wrong I will continue to believe that there is. I'm sure that unless I can prove you wrong you will also continue to believe that it did not exist.; it's just a matter of faith.

The Injeel was not written until until long after the death of Jesus, so how could it have been dropped out of a cloud into Jesus's hands? :noid:

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Right, so Paul, as an 8 day old baby, tells his parents to circumcise him? :noid: :lol: The second point is about the Risen Christ being a replacement for the law, and is repeated often throughout the NT.

I can love someone and hate the other. This is proof that love and hate are not mutually exclusive. there are even love hate relationships where love and hate co-exist.

Love has nothing to do with anyone else. It is a quality of one's being. A loving person simply loves, just as an alive person breathes. You don’t say; "unless there is perfect air I'm not going to breathe." You go on breathing even in London; you go on breathing in Khartoum. Love is not confined to a person or an object, or it is not really love; but need.

Chabchaba

August 14th 2007, 04:48 AM

I just have time for 3 of your points

The Injeel was not written until until long after the death of Jesus, so how could it have been dropped out of a cloud into Jesus's hands? :noid:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 reads, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I don't think that the verse refers only the OT when it talks about scripture, but to the injeel also. the book dropped from the clouds is not the canonical books of the NT (which were not existent at that time of course), but something which Jesus recieved from God and which is preserved, partly in his teachings in the NT, partly in books which were not included in the canon and partly in others that were lost due to the early church's "anti-heretical" zeal.
The rest of the NT and the other non canonical books are beneficial because they give us an insight on how the early christians understood the message of Jesus.

Right, so Paul, as an 8 day old baby, tells his parents to circumcise him? :noid: :lol: The second point is about the Risen Christ being a replacement for the law, and is repeated often throughout the NT.

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
He clearly states that he still has his own righteousness which is of the law. he never said that he has abandoned the law.
He said that he is found through faith, and I agree with him that righteousness by good works without faith doesn't mean anything, and I also think that just like him, everyone should still keep their own righteousness which is of the law as well as the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Love has nothing to do with anyone else. It is a quality of one's being. A loving person simply loves, just as an alive person breathes. You don’t say; "unless there is perfect air I'm not going to breathe." You go on breathing even in London; you go on breathing in Khartoum. Love is not confined to a person or an object, or it is not really love; but need.

you got this wrong. a living person tries not to breathe when there is pollution or a bad smell in the air but breathes all the same because he needs to breathe. your analogy does not fit here because it is more like you're proving that love and breathing are both similar because they are based on need.

and if you love everything because you are just a loving person and that's your nature, it means that you feel the same way about the devil as you feel about God and that you feel the same about lying as you feel about truthfulness.

please explain to me how that fits in with your concept of being co-workers with God trying to bring God's kingdom on earth. does that mean that God's kingdom is the place where there is no place for ordinary morality because all things are to be loved equally and sin has been abolished by the crucifiction?

I don't think so.. God don't play that :lol:

Narnian

August 14th 2007, 10:19 AM

2 Timothy 3:16-17 reads, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."I don't think that the verse refers only the OT when it talks about scripture, but to the injeel also.

The Injeel had not even been written at the time Paul wrote his letters. The gospels were written after Paul's death. The scripture Paul refers to here are Jewish texts.

The first known gospel is Mark which dates to 60-75AD

There is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written sometime between the late 60s or the early 70s.[13] There are vocal minority groups that argue for earlier or later dates. However, as most scholars believe that either Matthew or Luke was written around the year 80 and used Mark as a source, they find a date past 75 unlikely.[14] There is no definite way to determine how early it was written, as most scholars reject the assertion of Callaghan and Thiede that a fragment of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls as lacking sufficient evidence.

Mark 13:1-2, known as the "little apocalypse", remains a controversial passage regarding the dating of the text. Exegesis is often employed to show correspondences between the passage and the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt of 66–70. The passage predicts that Herod's Temple would be torn down completely, and this was done by the forces of the Roman general Titus.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_mark#Date

John's Gospel is even later; dated to around 100AD.

So, tell me now, Chabchaba; how could Allah have sent the gospels when they were written so long after Jesus died? Huh?

5:046 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

3:003 Arberry He has sent down upon thee the Book with the truth, confirming what was before it, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel

Also, of note, is that the arabic word for gospels; "Injeel" is almost the same as the Greek word "Injeelion" The word Injil is generally held by non-Muslim historians to be an abbreviation of the Greek word Ευαγγέλιον http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injeel ..... Funny that Allah used a Greek abbreviation to call what he sent to Jesus in Aramaic speaking Galilee :noid: :lol:

the book dropped from the clouds is not the canonical books of the NT (which were not existent at that time of course), but something which Jesus recieved from God and which is preserved,

The Koran states that Jesus was sent "the Gospels" not just "something he received from God". This verse debunks your claim because it refers to the gospel as

7:156-157 ...whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that is with them.

The gospel is something that was "written" therefore it refers to a book.

It also states that Muhammad was mentioned in the gospel as "Ahmed" (which will take us to another debate if you like).

Furthermore, Muhammad was told to READ the gospel;

10:94 “If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU”

Jesus was born The Logos; he did not have to be sent anything.

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
He clearly states that he still has his own righteousness which is of the law. he never said that he has abandoned the law.

Wait a minute; you started off implying that Islam was superior because it had The Law and that Christianity was inferior because it didn't. Now you are arguing that Christianity has the Law also! :lol:

please explain to me how that fits in with your concept of being co-workers with God trying to bring God's kingdom on earth. does that mean that God's kingdom is the place where there is no place for ordinary morality because all things are to be loved equally and sin has been abolished by the crucifiction?
:

Jesus speaks of 2 forms of love; Agape and Phileo. Agape is the higher spiritual form of love and Phileo is probably the love you are referring to; ie the love of one's family. In John's gospel God is referred to as Agape.

Chabchaba

August 15th 2007, 05:53 AM

The Injeel had not even been written at the time Paul wrote his letters. The gospels were written after Paul's death. The scripture Paul refers to here are Jewish texts.

The first known gospel is Mark which dates to 60-75AD

There is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written sometime between the late 60s or the early 70s.[13] There are vocal minority groups that argue for earlier or later dates. However, as most scholars believe that either Matthew or Luke was written around the year 80 and used Mark as a source, they find a date past 75 unlikely.[14] There is no definite way to determine how early it was written, as most scholars reject the assertion of Callaghan and Thiede that a fragment of Mark was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls as lacking sufficient evidence.

Mark 13:1-2, known as the "little apocalypse", remains a controversial passage regarding the dating of the text. Exegesis is often employed to show correspondences between the passage and the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt of 66–70. The passage predicts that Herod's Temple would be torn down completely, and this was done by the forces of the Roman general Titus.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_mark#Date

John's Gospel is even later; dated to around 100AD.

So, tell me now, Chabchaba; how could Allah have sent the gospels when they were written so long after Jesus died? Huh?

5:046 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

3:003 Arberry He has sent down upon thee the Book with the truth, confirming what was before it, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel

Also, of note, is that the arabic word for gospels; "Injeel" is almost the same as the Greek word "Injeelion" The word Injil is generally held by non-Muslim historians to be an abbreviation of the Greek word Ευαγγέλιον http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injeel ..... Funny that Allah used a Greek abbreviation to call what he sent to Jesus in Aramaic speaking Galilee :noid: :lol:

The Koran states that Jesus was sent "the Gospels" not just "something he received from God". This verse debunks your claim because it refers to the gospel as

7:156-157 ...whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that is with them.

The gospel is something that was "written" therefore it refers to a book.

It also states that Muhammad was mentioned in the gospel as "Ahmed" (which will take us to another debate if you like).

Furthermore, Muhammad was told to READ the gospel;

10:94 “If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU”

Jesus was born The Logos; he did not have to be sent anything.

I'll repeat to you my position. There is a book which was revealed to Jesus. A portion of it can be found today, partly in his teachings which were recorded in the NT, partly in books which were not included in the canon and partly in others that were lost due to the early church's "anti-heretical" zeal.
The rest of the NT and the other non canonical books are beneficial because they give us an insight on how the early christians understood the message of Jesus.

People who read the bible are reading the parts of the injeel which were preserved in the existing gospels, as well as the commentaries and the translation errors.

Wait a minute; you started off implying that Islam was superior because it had The Law and that Christianity was inferior because it didn't. Now you are arguing that Christianity has the Law also! :lol:

what I believe is that Jesus did not abolish the law, in the quran he says:
And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me. Lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.

what you say that you believe is that there is no such thing as sin and that God loves good and evil equally because he is love. In my mind your beliefs are not representative of Christianity because there are some Christian denominations which follow the law.

what I was implying is that Jesus did not abrogate the law but merely made some changes.

Jesus speaks of 2 forms of love; Agape and Phileo. Agape is the higher spiritual form of love and Phileo is probably the love you are referring to; ie the love of one's family. In John's gospel God is referred to as Agape.

you avoided the point:

is love supposed to be for all things equally? do you love Satan as much as you love God? Do you love lies as much as you love truthfulness?

do you feel that morality has no place in the kingdom of God because sin has been abolished by the sacrifice?

Besides, Jesus didn’t talk about Agape and Phileo; jesus spoke Aramaic which has only one word for love, as compared to greek which has three: eros, agapao and phileo.

John 21:17 He saith to him the third time, `Simon, son of Jonas, dost thou dearly love me?` Peter was grieved that he said to him the third time, `Dost thou dearly love (agapao) me?` and he said to him, `Lord, thou hast known all things; thou dost know that I dearly love (phileo) thee.` Jesus saith to him, `Feed my sheep;

The different words here (agapao and phileo) were introduced in the greek translation but the original contained the aramaic word. strangely the differences which were non-existent in aramaic are lost in English too.
Now if the original aramaic text had two different types of love, simon would have answered: No, lord, I don't agapao you, I only phileo you.

You can check the aramaic on this site http://www.peshitta.org/

The fact that most Christian concepts can only be explained in greek and latin terminology makes me believe that if Jesus were alive today, he’d have trouble understanding the complicated religion which his simple message has been turned into. :smile:

Narnian

August 15th 2007, 09:01 AM

There is a book which was revealed to Jesus.

So you agree that the "injeel" the Quran speaks about IS a written item. Good.

Now I would like you to demonstrate your evidence that Jesus received some message dictated from heaven and that he wrote it in a book. Even just show me some recorded evidence of Jesus writing (except with a stick in sand).

And when did this book go 'astray'? Was it still in circulation at the time of Muhammad?

The rest of the NT and the other non canonical books are beneficial because they give us an insight on how the early christians understood the message of Jesus.

This injeel, which Muhammad was told to read by Allah, which one was it? This unheard-of book that Jesus himself wrote, or the gospels we have today?

People who read the bible are reading the parts of the injeel which were preserved in the existing gospels, as well as the commentaries and the translation errors.

Evidence please.

I note that you also avoided my questions.

Why did Allah use the same Greek word to name the book he sent to Jesus that wasn't even coined until at least 140AD?

Where is Muhammad mentioned in the injeel? Your verse please? The Quran says that we will find him mentioned in the Injeel.

what I believe is that Jesus did not abolish the law, in the quran he says:
.[/I]

I don't believe a word of the Quran, so it's not use using that forgery as evidence. You might be surprised to hear that Jesus was not even a Jew - as in a Judean. He was a Galilean and just before he was born, Judea obtained indedpence and forcibly converted the Galileans to Judea-ism.

John Hyrcanus, Simon's third son, assumed the leadership and ruled from 135 to 104 BCE. As Ethnarch and High Priest of Jerusalem, Hyrcanus annexed Trans-Jordan, Samaria, Galilee, Idumea (also known as Edom), and forced Idumeans to convert to Judaism:
"Hyrcanus...subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, (25) and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews."[31] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean#Seleucid_rule_over_Israel

So, the ancestors of Jesus were most likely Zoroastrians. This figures, because the teachings of Jesus are very similar to Zarathustra's. Have you seen my thread of this? My conclusion is that Christianity has far more in common with Zoroastrianism than it does with Judaism; especially Torah-Judaism (ie the Sadducees of Jerusalem, of whom Jesus - and the rest of Palistine had conflicts with in this era) .

Palestine was a mix of peoples, languages, and cultures in the first century CE, and Judaism had many different streams, using and discarding different OT scrolls. Jesus, for example, quotes almost excusively from Isaiah, and Second Isaiah at that.

is love supposed to be for all things equally? do you love Satan as much as you love God? Do you love lies as much as you love truthfulness?

As I already said, this sort of love described in the NT is Agape, different from Phileo. Agape is not connected to any person or object. It is a quality of one's being. So, rather than "I love everyone", it is "I love".

do you feel that morality has no place in the kingdom of God because sin has been abolished by the sacrifice?

State laws and constitutions are necessary because we are human and sinners, but religious law, ie legalism and institutionalism, sow seeds of death in a community of love. Morality, as I already explained, is natural, once one is secure in the knowledge that they are loved, saved and forgiven.

Islam changes you only on the surface. Christianity totally transforms you from the inside so that you transcend your weaknesses that would otherwise cause you to sin. However, if a religion is concerned with external laws, these distract you from this same transcendence.

In fact, it's MUCH easier to get obsessed with morality or follow a set of rules that change you externally, than it is to be transformed internally. I think that is part of the reason why muslims - and others - fight Christianity so much. They resist that transformation, because it has to do with letting go of one's ego. It's much easier to avoid eating a ham sandwich ......... than have to face one's lack of love within.

Besides, Jesus didn’t talk about Agape and Phileo; jesus spoke Aramaic which has only one word for love, as compared to greek which has three: eros, agapao and phileo.

According to scholars there is evidence that Jesus would have had knowledge of Greek. I c/p an old email regarding this issue from Dr Traer:

Under Roman rule, however, the language of commerce and public affairs was Koine Greek, as it had been under Greek rule. Persians ruled the area under the Greeks for a time, so there was certainly a mixing of Persian and Greek culture.

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, was prepared in Alexandria around 200 BCE. It was necessary, because so many Jews living in the Diaspora were unable to read the Hebrew scriptures or the Aramaic translations.

At the time of Jesus there were many more Greek-speaking Jews than Aramaic-speaking Jews in the Roman Empire. The former were living in the Greek/Roman cities of the Empire, and the latter only in the region of Palestine.

Paul was educated in Greek literature, as his writing style reveals. All the New Testament materials were written in Greek, even the materials written for Jews (as these Jews were Greek-speaking Jews living in Roman cities). The gospels, which were later included in the New Testament canon, quote Jewish scripture from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew scriptures. This is true even when the gospels are quoting Jesus, who presumably spoke in Aramaic to quote scripture to local folks in Galilee. This is evidence that the gospels are literary creations, rather than journalistic reports or simply a compilation of oral tradition.

There were Greek speaking Jews in Palestine. Many were living in the Decapolis, the ten Greek cities that were mostly East of the Jordan River. Sepphoris, however, a Greek-speaking city, was located only a walk away from Nazareth in Galilee. It is hard to believe that Jesus never went there, although Sepphoris is not mentioned in the New Testament gospels.

There were also Greek-speaking Jews in Jerusalem. Moreover, Herod settled Roman soldiers in places like Sebaste, which was later called Neopolis (and today is called Nablus). Palestine was a mix of peoples, languages, and cultures in the first century CE.

Grace and peace...Bob
http://christian-bible.com

John 21:17 He saith to him the third time, `Simon, son of Jonas, dost thou dearly love me?` Peter was grieved that he said to him the third time, `Dost thou dearly love (agapao) me?` and he said to him, `Lord, thou hast known all things; thou dost know that I dearly love (phileo) thee.` Jesus saith to him, `Feed my sheep;

The different words here (agapao and phileo) were introduced in the greek translation but the original contained the aramaic word. strangely the differences which were non-existent in aramaic are lost in English too.
Now if the original aramaic text had two different types of love, simon would have answered: No, lord, I don't agapao you, I only phileo you.

You can check the aramaic on this site http://www.peshitta.org/

What exactly is your point and if you send me a link can you please direct me to the exact page? I have read copious amounts of research on the Peshitta and it is more than evident that the Peshitta is not the original, but a copy from the Greek made first by Tatian in the 2nd or 3rd century (I forget the year).

Chabchaba

August 15th 2007, 12:54 PM

So you agree that the "injeel" the Quran speaks about IS a written item. Good.

Now I would like you to demonstrate your evidence that Jesus received some message dictated from heaven and that he wrote it in a book. Even just show me some recorded evidence of Jesus writing (except with a stick in sand).

And when did this book go 'astray'? Was it still in circulation at the time of Muhammad?

This injeel, which Muhammad was told to read by Allah, which one was it? This unheard-of book that Jesus himself wrote, or the gospels we have today?

Did I ever say that Jesus wrote it? I didn't.
It was dicated to him and he taught it.

because I spake not from myself, but the Father who sent me, He did give me a command, what I may say, and what I may speak, John 12:49

It's a book in a loose sense, just like the quran was considered quran (quran literally means reading) from the time it was revealed not from the time it was recorded.
The original gospel was probably recorded early and contained the teachings of jesus, later people added commentaries and stories and scribe errors slowly but surely crept in. some texts were later discarded when they didn't keep up with the development of christian theology. The books in existence today all probably contain part of the original but are not necessarily completely true to it.

And there is a point I'd like to make clear: the Quran never speaks about Christians it speaks about Nasara which probably means Nazoreans (a term used to describe Jesus in the bible but usually translated as " the Nazarene" or "of Nazareth").

You know of course that there are many gospels which are not in existence today and which were used by sects which were considered heretical. The injeel which was mentioned in the quran was probably in use by some of these sects and is not necessarily the book which is in circulation today.

Evidence please.

I note that you also avoided my questions.

Why did Allah use the same Greek word to name the book he sent to Jesus that wasn't even coined until at least 140AD?

Where is Muhammad mentioned in the injeel? Your verse please? The Quran says that we will find him mentioned in the Injeel.

And why not use a greek word if it was used by the christians at the time? and why do you have to bring up the unrelated topic about Muhammed being mentioned in the injeel here? I think that you have discussed the question of whether or not Muhammed PBUH was mentioned in the gospel in other threads. when I want to discuss it we can discuss it there :smile:

I don't believe a word of the Quran, so it's not use using that forgery as evidence. You might be surprised to hear that Jesus was not even a Jew - as in a Judean. He was a Galilean and just before he was born, Judea obtained indedpence and forcibly converted the Galileans to Judea-ism.

John Hyrcanus, Simon's third son, assumed the leadership and ruled from 135 to 104 BCE. As Ethnarch and High Priest of Jerusalem, Hyrcanus annexed Trans-Jordan, Samaria, Galilee, Idumea (also known as Edom), and forced Idumeans to convert to Judaism:
"Hyrcanus...subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, (25) and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews."[31] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean#Seleucid_rule_over_Israel

So, the ancestors of Jesus were most likely Zoroastrians. This figures, because the teachings of Jesus are very similar to Zarathustra's. Have you seen my thread of this? My conclusion is that Christianity has far more in common with Zoroastrianism than it does with Judaism; especially Torah-Judaism (ie the Sadducees of Jerusalem, of whom Jesus - and the rest of Palistine had conflicts with in this era) .

Palestine was a mix of peoples, languages, and cultures in the first century CE, and Judaism had many different streams, using and discarding different OT scrolls. Jesus, for example, quotes almost excusively from Isaiah, and Second Isaiah at that.

So Jesus was a zoroastrian? Or maybe he was a buddhist because christianity has some parallels with buddhism. Possibly also he was a Sabian or a Mandeian, or maybe he was into greek philosophy.. :smile:

I think that christianity today has much more in common with these religions than it has to do with judaism, but can you prove that this is not due to later influence from outsiders and converts?

By the way the influence of these eastern religions on christianity is more evident in gnostic sects, while greek philosphy has influenced Pauline Christianity more.

State laws and constitutions are necessary because we are human and sinners, but religious law, ie legalism and institutionalism, sow seeds of death in a community of love. Morality, as I already explained, is natural, once one is secure in the knowledge that they are loved, saved and forgiven.

Islam changes you only on the surface. Christianity totally transforms you from the inside so that you transcend your weaknesses that would otherwise cause you to sin. However, if a religion is concerned with external laws, these distract you from this same transcendence.

In fact, it's MUCH easier to get obsessed with morality or follow a set of rules that change you externally, than it is to be transformed internally. I think that is part of the reason why muslims - and others - fight Christianity so much. They resist that transformation, because it has to do with letting go of one's ego. It's much easier to avoid eating a ham sandwich ......... than have to face one's lack of love within.

Are we sinners? is there sin at all? how can you sin when there is no law to sin against? You keep contradicting yourself, please make yourself more clear.

When you take the laws as the end it means you will be preoccupied with them and they will distract you but when you take them as a path it means that they will not stop you from realizing the transcendence which you strive for.

Let me explain this to you more:

when God says that jews need to be circumcised or the christians need to be baptized this is a kind of initiation ritual. it means that the person has formally joined the community of believers. The secular equivalent of this is obtaining citizenship documents.

Then there is the institutionalised law. This is the equivalent of the secular laws which you have (and which are based on judeo-christian morality concepts) and it's because there is a level of morality which is the minimum accepted for the society. It is for the spiritual children to make them behave well and to help them grow spiritually. The laws are just to point the way to people but they are not an end in themselves. (The word sharia means "path").

People who are spiritually well developed are totally transformed from the inside so that they transcend their weaknesses that would otherwise cause them to sin. Just like an adult does not need to be told not to cross the street without looking. They have already learned that when they were children.

The law in the scriptures has different parts and each of them speaks to a different audience.

Take this example:
Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, those who pardon and maintain righteousness are rewarded by GOD. He does not love the unjust. (Qur'an 42:40).

In this verse there is an example of both the institutionalised law (retribution) as well as what the developed person is expected to do (forgiveness), which is something beyond the law. People will follow the part which corresponds to their level of spiritual growth and this allows them to grow at their own pace instead of talking about love while they have hate in their hearts. The fruit of the law is growth and eventually love while the fruit of the pseudo-loving path is feeling guilty and lost.

by the way the word Torah means law but another meaning is "teaching". it can be considered as an ongoing proceses of ascending into higher levels of knowledge, just like the Sharia is a path and not an end in itself. The law is a dynamic process, while grace is a static concept of God-Man relationship. it is not in itself fruitful, but coupled with a dynamic teaching mechanism like the law it becomes a fruitful concept.

When you boast about your salvation through works you distance yourself from God but I don't think that the act of eating ham sandwiches is in itself spiritually beneficial. :lol:

According to scholars there is evidence that Jesus would have had knowledge of Greek. I c/p an old email regarding this issue from Dr Traer:

Under Roman rule, however, the language of commerce and public affairs was Koine Greek, as it had been under Greek rule. Persians ruled the area under the Greeks for a time, so there was certainly a mixing of Persian and Greek culture.

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, was prepared in Alexandria around 200 BCE. It was necessary, because so many Jews living in the Diaspora were unable to read the Hebrew scriptures or the Aramaic translations.

At the time of Jesus there were many more Greek-speaking Jews than Aramaic-speaking Jews in the Roman Empire. The former were living in the Greek/Roman cities of the Empire, and the latter only in the region of Palestine.

Paul was educated in Greek literature, as his writing style reveals. All the New Testament materials were written in Greek, even the materials written for Jews (as these Jews were Greek-speaking Jews living in Roman cities). The gospels, which were later included in the New Testament canon, quote Jewish scripture from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew scriptures. This is true even when the gospels are quoting Jesus, who presumably spoke in Aramaic to quote scripture to local folks in Galilee. This is evidence that the gospels are literary creations, rather than journalistic reports or simply a compilation of oral tradition.

There were Greek speaking Jews in Palestine. Many were living in the Decapolis, the ten Greek cities that were mostly East of the Jordan River. Sepphoris, however, a Greek-speaking city, was located only a walk away from Nazareth in Galilee. It is hard to believe that Jesus never went there, although Sepphoris is not mentioned in the New Testament gospels.

There were also Greek-speaking Jews in Jerusalem. Moreover, Herod settled Roman soldiers in places like Sebaste, which was later called Neopolis (and today is called Nablus). Palestine was a mix of peoples, languages, and cultures in the first century CE.

Grace and peace...Bob
http://christian-bible.com

He may have spoken greek and maybe not (there is no conclusive proof), but that's not the point; the point is: did he preach in greek? was it his first language? If you have any proof of that please tell me.

As I already said, this sort of love described in the NT is Agape, different from Phileo. Agape is not connected to any person or object. It is a quality of one's being. So, rather than "I love everyone", it is "I love".

In the greek bibles Jesus asks Simon do you love (agapao) me? If it was as you say there wouldn't be any need for adding "me" here.

What exactly is your point and if you send me a link can you please direct me to the exact page? I have read copious amounts of research on the Peshitta and it is more than evident that the Peshitta is not the original, but a copy from the Greek made first by Tatian in the 2nd or 3rd century (I forget the year).

There is evidence (although not conclusive) that the Peshitta is not a copy from the greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy

The point is that Jesus asked Simon: do you agapao me? simon answered yes you know that I phileo you.

In the greek text Jesus asks about agapao and Simon answers about phileo. If they were talking about two different things He would have answered: No, I only phileo you. The only possibility that I can think of is that they both were speaking in aramaic and they used the aramaic word for love, but the translator used a different word for translating love in each instance.

spitndirt

August 15th 2007, 06:42 PM

Narnian

August 15th 2007, 10:37 PM

]Did I ever say that Jesus wrote it? I didn't.
It was dicated to him and he taught it.

So how do you explain this verse;

7:156-157 ...whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that is with them.

Which book is it?

It's a book in a loose sense, just like the quran was considered quran (quran literally means reading) from the time it was revealed not from the time it was recorded.

So, are you saying that the Quran is not "the" book that was dictated by Allah?

The original gospel was probably recorded early and contained the teachings of jesus, later people added commentaries and stories and scribe errors slowly but surely crept in. some texts were later discarded when they didn't keep up with the development of christian theology. The books in existence today all probably contain part of the original but are not necessarily completely true to it.

Did Muhammad in the 7th century, have this book? And if not why does Allah tell him to consult it if he is confused?

10:94 “If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU”

You know of course that there are many gospels which are not in existence today and which were used by sects which were considered heretical. The injeel which was mentioned in the quran was probably in use by some of these sects and is not necessarily the book which is in circulation today.

So you are saying that there WAS the "perfect" hardcopy injeel in circulation in Arabia? I want you to be clear before I go on. Did Muhammad have this "true" injeel book in the 7th century, or not?

I think that you have discussed the question of whether or not Muhammed PBUH was mentioned in the gospel in other threads. when I want to discuss it we can discuss it there :smile:

Yes, please either go to that thread or we can start a new one. So far, noone has been able to refute me. The other muslims here don't have enough knowledge ..... to put it another way ..... you seem to be the most knowledgable muslim here.

I think that christianity today has much more in common with these religions than it has to do with judaism, but can you prove that this is not due to later influence from outsiders and converts?

Of course - Zoroastrianism is much older than Judaism, and at the time of Jesus the Z population was huge. This is discussed in one of my books; "The Magi: From Zoroaster to the Three Wise Men". That all changed after muslim crusaders went through (but that's another story). If you study Zoroastrianism in some depth, you will realise the link with Christianity is overwhelming. Buddhism is Zoroastrianised-hinduism.

By the way the influence of these eastern religions on christianity is more evident in gnostic sects, while greek philosphy has influenced Pauline Christianity more.

Greek philosophy is based on Zoroastrianism. It is fairly well established that Socrates was a Zoroastrian, and Plato's "cave" theory is very similar to Z's concept of material and spiritual realms. Plato also mentions Zarathustra in his writings. The concept of the Kingdom of God stems directly from Zoroastrianism, not Judaism, and there are dozens of other examples.

Muhammad, on the other hand, killed Zoroastrian priests for no apparent reason.

Are we sinners? is there sin at all? how can you sin when there is no law to sin against? You keep contradicting yourself, please make yourself more clear.

The word "sin" means "off the mark" or "off centre". Jesus is our "centre" - how ever our behaviour diverts from "what would Jesus do" is "off centre".

This is the problem with Islam, because the Quran says Muhammad is your exemplar;

Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much. (33:21)

and Muhamamd was a cruel and immoral man.

The very centre of Islam is poisoned because of this.

Then there is the institutionalised law. This is the equivalent of the secular laws which you have (and which are based on judeo-christian morality concepts)

I have already proven to you that they are based on Greek philosophy.

and it's because there is a level of morality which is the minimum accepted for the society. It is for the spiritual children to make them behave well and to help them grow spiritually. The laws are just to point the way to people but they are not an end in themselves. (The word sharia means "path").

I have no problem with rules and laws ..... just as long as they are not called "holy". All laws and rules should be open to change or adaption for changing times and people. When people get confused and start calling cultural norms "from God", that's when you get problems. And that's why the muslim world lives in misery (and sin).

People who are spiritually well developed are totally transformed from the inside so that they transcend their weaknesses that would otherwise cause them to sin. Just like an adult does not need to be told not to cross the street without looking. They have already learned that when they were children.

Crossing the street properly has nothing to do with one's spiritual development; it is a logical process which comes from our God-given brains. I do not have to tell my son that if he doens't cross the road correctly, God will be angry, because god's law is that we have to cross the road correctly - I simply tell him he might get run over! :lol: Even a 7 year old has enough logic in their brains to understand that. :ahem:

The law in the scriptures has different parts and each of them speaks to a different audience.

Take this example:
Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, those who pardon and maintain righteousness are rewarded by GOD. He does not love the unjust. (Qur'an 42:40).

Yes, I'm aware of all these ambiguous verses. They are not written for different levels; they are simply ambiguous, and the obvious work of a later redactor who thought the Quran was a little too harsh. Why keep a person stuck on the low level of equal retribution? Even my 7 year old is no longer on that level. You need to pull people out of immaturity and not play down to their level. Have confidence in their ability and speak to that level - that's how people grow up.

When you boast about your salvation through works you distance yourself from God but I don't think that the act of eating ham sandwiches is in itself spiritually beneficial. :lol:

Ham sandwiches are neutral :twitch: Ham does not touch your inner being - even a child would know that these days. Jesus already debunked this myth 2000 years ago when he said;

Mark 7:19 Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again." (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.) 20 And then he added, "It is the thought-life that defiles you.

Mt 15:11 - What goes into your mouth does not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth, that is what defiles you.

There is evidence (although not conclusive) that the Peshitta is not a copy from the greek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy

I have read the evidence with an open mind when I studied it indepth and it is highly unlikely that the gospels had an aramaic version. Books were written in Greek as it was a literary language of the arts. As I said; Tatian translated the Greek texts at a later date - this is recorded historical fact.

In the greek bibles Jesus asks Simon do you love (agapao) me? If it was as you say there wouldn't be any need for adding "me" here.

Although I find this too petty to discuss, can you show me the word "ME" in the Greek text?

In the greek text Jesus asks about agapao and Simon answers about phileo. If they were talking about two different things He would have answered: No, I only phileo you. The only possibility that I can think of is that they both were speaking in aramaic and they used the aramaic word for love, but the translator used a different word for translating love in each instance.

If this was the case, then the copier who made those changes had a higher understanding of love than Jesus .... and I doubt that would be so. Besides, people have always borrowed words to enhance an otherwise stagnated language vocabulary, like we use French words "Bete Noire" etc. 'Parakletos', for example, is a Greek word, yet it was also used in Aramaic language.

Narnian

August 17th 2007, 12:13 AM

Hi Chabchaba,
It looks like your post was deleted during the website crash, just as I clicked on 'quote" to reply to you. I can't recall much of what you wrote, so please write again and answer my questions.

Here are some responses to the bits I remembered:

You said that my definition of sin was just my own opinion. No, it's not. Here is proof;

The Greek word hamartia (ἁμαρτία) is usually translated as sin in the New Testament; it means "to miss the mark" or "to miss the target" which was also used in Old English archery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Etymology

Muhammad was more of a sinner than most muslims today. He strayed way off centre and his character and deeds were the opposite of Jesus. Yet he is considered the ultimate role model for muslims, as Allah stated in the Quran.

You said something about the Injeel being a book that was sent down to Jesus. But Jesus was not like Muhammad or Moses. You will never find salvation in a book ...... but in a Person:

"...you do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life." (John 5:38-40)

Jesus was born "The Logos" (spiritual wisdom) - he did not receive anything.

See this website; this minister has some excellent articles about Christianity:
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotbrel.html by James A. Fowler

Christianity is not a book-religion! Christianity is Christ functioning as the expressive Word of God in man.
"these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31). The purpose of the Scriptures is to lead one to receive the life that is in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:16 - "Let The Logos of Christ richly dwell within you..." Paul is not saying, "let the words of the Bible" dwell in you. The parallel passage in Ephesians 5:18 explains that the Spirit of Christ is to fill us and dwell within us.

Apart from the Living Word, Jesus Christ, functioning spiritually in our lives, the book is mere "letter" (legalistic biblicism), and there is no Spirit-action, no genuine divine functioning. To the Corinthians Paul wrote, "God... made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (II Corinthians 3:6,7). Mere book-religion kills, but Spirit-revelation gives life. Mere comprehension of Bible-words kills, but the Spirit of Christ, the Living Word of God, gives life. To the Romans Paul wrote, "we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6). Christians are not "bound" to the "letter" of book-religion. We live and serve in the newness of the Spirit of Christ activating our lives from within.

Without the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ reading the Bible will be like reading someone else's mail. You cannot understand it because it was not intended for you. Oh, you may be able to chart the history. You may be able to discuss the theology. You might even be able to produce detailed speculations about the future, but you will not be able to receive the living, spiritual implications of the life of Jesus Christ.

Christianity IS Christ. Christianity cannot be separated from the reality of the living dynamic of the risen Lord Jesus. It must not be described as benefits or blessings apart from the very Being and activity of the risen Jesus.

"the fruit of the Spirit which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and the godly control of the self" Gal. 5:22,23 - not a "book".

2 Corinthians 13:5 Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you??
"Christ in you, the hope of glory" Col. 1:27
"Greater is He who is in you, than he who is in the world" I John 4:4
"Greater is He who is in you, than he who is in the world" I John 4:4).

The divine positive swallows up the sinful negatives. Since the "God who is love" I John 4:8,16) has come to live in the Christian, "the love that controls us" II Cor. 5:14 counters and overcomes the selfishness that is the opposite of all love.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did you realise that Mosaic Law was already being abrogated during the time of Isaiah, which dates to 400BC, and in which there is a carbon dated scroll to 200BC? It was no "corruption" of the early church. Every time I present these verses muslims disappear. Read carefully:

Moses:

Nu 10:10 - your appointed feasts and New Moon festivals--you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial for you before your God. I am the Lord your God."
Nu 28:14 - This is the monthly burnt offering to be made at each new moon during the year.

but:
Isaiah 1:14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. 15 When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.

In Mosaic Law you were required to fast at appointed times:

Le 16:29 "On the appointed day in early autumn, you must spend the day fasting and not do any work. This is a permanent law for you
Le 16:31 It will be a Sabbath day of total rest, and you will spend the day in fasting. This is a permanent law for you.

but;
Isaiah 58.6 "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

In Mosaic Law, you were required to slaughter animals at festivals etc:

Le 4:24 - He is to lay his hand on the goat's head and slaughter it at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered before the Lord. It is a sin offering. (dozens of other Laws on slaughtering animals in Torah)

but:
Isaiah 66.3 Whoever slaughters an ox is like one who kills a human being; whoever sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck

In the Torah and History books you are fight wars:

but;
Isa 2:4 - they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

New Covenant, abrogating the former:

65.17 "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy. 19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more....25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the Lord.

Both Isaiah and Muhammad can't be right ..... :noid:

Chabchaba

August 18th 2007, 08:02 AM

It looks like your post was deleted during the website crash, just as I clicked on 'quote" to reply to you. I can't recall much of what you wrote, so please write again and answer my questions.

I can't repeat the answers but here is the main idea:

Here is some proof that there was a book before the current gospels were written:

Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus talks about the apostles and says that they preached the "Gospel of Christ".

1:8 in flaming fire, giving vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ;

(Note that it does not say believing or accepting the gospel but says "obeying" the gospel. A gospel which was not in existence at that time according to your beliefs. This is not just a reference to "good news" because good news cannot "obeyed")

There are numerous sayings by Jesus which are found quoted by the early church fathers but which cannot be found in any of the existing gospels. This indicates that there was some oral or written tradition which preserved the teachings of Jesus but which has now been lost or altered beyond recognition.

There is also proof from the early christians that the gospels were only for the laymen but that there were other writings which were only for the elect. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) says:

Now then, Mark during Peter's stay in Rome wrote down the acts of the Lord, nevertheless not telling all, nor even hinting at the sacred ones (tas mystikas), but selecting those which he thought most useful for the growth of the investigators' faith. When Peter was martyred, Mark came to Alexandria; polishing both his own and Peter's notes, from which by transferring into his first book those things appropriate for those progressing in the testimony (gn_sis), he compiled a more spiritual gospel for the use of those being perfected (t_n teleioumen_n). In no way, however, did he betray those things not discussed, nor did he write down the initiatory teaching (hierophantik_n didaskalian)30of the Lord.

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Even if you can explain away some of these, the total of them taken in the light of the many other sayings to the same effect prove that there was a written gospel in existence before the current gospels were written in greek much later.

The existing gospels retain part of the teachings of Jesus but are biased because they contain interpolations, additions by the early church as well as translation errors.

The information in the existing gospels has been subjected to cricicism by the early church on the basis of whether it agrees with the beliefs of the church (which only took its final shape centuries after Jesus) and therefore cannot be considered true to the teachings of Jesus, but only true to the teachings of the church.

Origen said: "'The Gospel according to Thomas' and a 'Gospel according to Matthias', and many others have we read - lest we should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine that they posses some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among all these we have approved solely what the Church has recognized, which is that only the four Gospels should be accepted. "

In addition to that there are some erroneous interpretations like when Jesus is mentioned as the "Nazorean" it is interpreted as meaning "of nazareth" and like when the bible says someone bowed to jesus, it is interpreted as meaning that this someone "worshipped" Jesus. This is not even noticed by christians today due to the extensive indoctrination by the church for centuries.

Did Muhammad in the 7th century, have this book? And if not why does Allah tell him to consult it if he is confused?

10:94 “If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU”

The bible retains part of the original message of Christ but when the quran refers to the injeel, it refers to the books which contain the core of the true message of Jesus, but that does not mean that any authority is acknowledged for the commentaries which were added by the gospel writers, or the interpretation of the church. Also it does not refer only to the canon, but also to the gospels of the "heretical" sects which, naturally, also retain part of the truth. There are some books which were considered inspired by the early christians and which were bannedby the church for no reason other than the fact that they do not go with the "party line".

Therefore the view of mainstream christianity that Jesus atoned for people's sins and that the law is abolished cannot be accepted as there is no evidence that Jesus ever said that, and also there is a lot of evidence that the story of the crucifiction is no more than fiction. there are some credible accounts that say he was stoned and hung on a tree which are confirmed by some canonical verses as well as by the Talmud:

Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"
Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree"

and there are many more mentions of the tree as opposed to the cross in the canonical books.

The fact that Jesus in some instances did not conform to the OT law does not prove that all laws were abolished, but could mean that the laws were changed. It could be just like the Jesus says according to the quran:
"'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me" quran 3:50
I know you don't believe in the quran, but can you prove that by working of the sabbath and associating with the sinners, Jesus was abrogating the whole law and not just parts of it?

The bible is clearly a very questionable book and the church's view of it is certainly more than questionable. This is the reason that I cannot accept the view that the death of Jesus on the cross (a fact which has yet to be proven) replaced the law, because even the fact that Jesus was a perfect sacrifice is questionable. There is some evidence from non-canonical gospels that Jesus has killed and blinded people when he was a child, so the fact that he was a perfect sacrifice can ONLY be established if we accept the canonical gospels as the infallible word of God, which is something that even you don't accept.

Your claim that Agape is not connected to any person or object. It is a quality of one's being. So, rather than "I love everyone", it is "I love" is in fact a groundless claim as the following evidence clearly shows:

"Jacob have I loved (AGAPAO)" — Romans 9:13

"Thou shalt love (AGAPAO) the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . Thou shalt love (AGAPAO) thy neighbour as thyself." — Matthew 22:37-39

"Demas hath forsaken me having loved (AGAPAO) this present world." — 2 Timothy 4:10

"men loved (AGAPAO) darkness rather than light." — John 3:19

"For they loved (AGAPAO) the praise of men more than the praise of God." — John 12:43

"sinners also love (AGAPAO) those that love them." — Luke 6:32

In all these instances agapao was connected to a person or object.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/agape.html

For all these reasons it is clear that your interpretation is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. I accept that faith is more important than the law, because the basis of religion is faith, but if you can prove beyond doubt (even from the questionable canonical gospels) that Jesus says he will die to atone for humanity's sins and thereby abolish the law or that he says that people are to reject the whole law, I will reject all laws and eat a ham sandwich immediately.

:popcorn:

Narnian

August 18th 2007, 09:22 AM

Chabchaba, you have not answered me on the Isaiah verses contradicting the Law of Moses yet. I await your response to that.

Chabchaba

August 18th 2007, 11:29 AM

Chabchaba, you have not answered me on the Isaiah verses contradicting the Law of Moses yet. I await your response to that.

The key to understanding Isaiah 1 is:

13Add not to bring in a vain present, Incense -- an abomination it [is] to Me, New moon, and sabbath, calling of convocation! Rendure not iniquity -- and a restraint!

They believed that when they sinned, it was ok of they just followed the atonement rituals. They didn't get the point that God gave them a way out because of his mercy for them, and not because he needed their sacrifices. In this way they were resisting God's mercy instead of accepting it. It was like they were trying to bribe God to forgive their sins. Their gifts and sacrifices were Gifts of deceit instead of repentance.
The passage clarifies this more when it says:
Isaiah 1
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword."
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Isaiah 58
4 Behold, ye fast for strife and contention, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye fast not this day so as to make your voice to be heard on high.

5 Is such the fast that I have chosen? the day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a rush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to Jehovah?

Fasting is not just for making yourself hungry. Fasting is only acceptable to God if you do good while fasting. This is the same as in Islam. The prophet says:

"He who does not give up uttering falsehood and acting according to it, Allah has no need of his giving up his food and his drink."

This hadith says that although the person is technically still fasting, it is completely useless when this person does not change his bad way of life. It is very much the same as the concept which Isaiah is trying to explain. ye fast not this day so as to make your voice to be heard on high. those people were fasting just as a habit and not to worship God. The y shoud truly humble themselves to the Lord on that day, and remember that fasting is not about afflicting oneself but it is also to loosen the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke, to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- and when they see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from their own flesh and blood. Fasting is like a reminder for them.

The verse in Isaiah does not mean that fasting is wrong but that it has to be accompanied by having faith and doing good.

You quoted part of Isaiah 66:3,The complete verse says:

But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a man,
and whoever offers a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog's neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig's blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense,
like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and their souls delight in their abominations;

Are you suggesting that people following the law of Moses have always been wrong and have chosen their own way, instead of the correct way (which you seem to think is zoroastrianism)?

If people who make sacrifices have chosen their own way, it naturally means that the law of Moses is not God-Given and that the people who follow it are delighting in abominations which God hates and has always hated.

Young's literal translation says:
3Whoso slaughtereth the ox smiteth a man, Whoso sacrificeth the lamb beheadeth a dog, Whoso is bringing up a present -- The blood of a sow, Whoso is making mention of frankincense, Is blessing iniquity. Yea, they have fixed on their own ways, And in their abominations their soul hath delighted.

This verse clearly does NOT say that people who make sacrifices are LIKE those who kill people and kill dogs and practice idolatry, but it merely says that those who make the sacrifices are killing people and dogs and making offerings of pigs' blood and blessing iniquity. They are doing two contradicting things, one of them acceptable and blessed by God and the other an abomination. Therefore God says:

4 "so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and will bring upon them what they dread.
For when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, no one listened.
They did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me."

To find a historical reference which clarifies what the verse means:

Very important events took place during the lifetime of Isaiah, both in the history of our people, as well as in the history of the world at large. Isaiah saw the rise of a new world empire, Assyria, whose king Shalmaneser conquered the Northern Kingdom, and led the Ten Tribes into exile. Judea alone remained, and it was the last bulwark of the true faith in One G-d. Yet here, too, the evil practices of the heathen neighbors began to make inroads, and the Holy City of Jerusalem was often desecrated by idolatry, injustice and corruption. Isaiah brought to the king and people the message of the holiness of G-d, at a time when idolatry seemed to be taking root in the land, and he preached justice and charity at a time when the morals of the people reached a new low.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.htm/aid/112071/jewish/The-Prophet-Isaiah.html

So the people were making offerings to God while they broke the commandments. They killed people and served other gods and made offerings for them, while still serving YHWH.The passage goes on to say:

15 For, lo, Jehovah in fire cometh, And as a hurricane His chariots, To refresh in fury His anger, And His rebuke in flames of fire.

16 For by fire and by His sword, Doth Jehovah do judgment with all flesh. And many have been Jehovah's pierced ones.'

17 Those sanctifying and cleansing themselves at the gardens, After Ahad in the midst, Eating flesh of the sow, And of the abomination, and of the mouse, Together are consumed, An affirmation of Jehovah.

The verses are not about grace as you presume but about justice.

And the peace in Isaiah 65 comes only after this:
12And I have numbered you for the sword, And all of you for slaughter bow down, Because I called, and ye have not answered, I have spoken, and ye have not hearkened, And ye do the evil thing in Mine eyes, And on that which I desired not -- fixed.

There is no real contradiction between Isaiah and the Mosaic laws

Narnian

August 18th 2007, 09:40 PM

Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus talks about the apostles and says that they preached the "Gospel of Christ".

The "good news" and coming Christ concept goes all the way back to the prophet's books of the OT, and it was never considered a written book but "good news". The Hebrew word is "Basar", and it also means flesh, as well as good news;

Isa 41:27 And to Jerusalem, 'I will give a messenger of good news. (basar)
Isa 52:7 How lovely on the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news (basar), Who announces peace And brings good news (basar) of happiness, Who announces salvation, And says to Zion, "Your God reigns!"
Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, Because the Lord has anointed me To bring good news (basar) to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim (basar) liberty to captives, And freedom to prisoners;
Na 1:15 Behold, on the mountains the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces peace! Celebrate your feasts, O Judah.

Note well that Isaiah 52:7 is quoted in Romans 10:15 by Paul;

Rom 10:15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news (injeelion)."

That Basar is both flesh and good news means that the injeelion is in fact a PERSON. Good incarnate.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us.

Your quotes from Ireneus etc prove absolutely nothing and are not worth wasting time over.

Furthermore, you did not answer my question; Did Muhammad have access to this supposed hardcopy book of this "dicatated to Jesus" Injeel or not? Choose Yes or No?

they do not go with the "party line".

The "party line" of Christ was that one is saved by a Person, not a book. That's why God sent his Son on Christmas eve; he did not send a book (as Allah did on the night of Qadr). That "party line" goes way back to the OT prophecies, as I have already shown you. Nowhere in the OT does it say God will be sending a book, but a Savior.

Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree"
Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree"

How does this prove that Jesus didn't die from his execution?

In all these instances agapao was connected to a person or object.

So, going back to your original point, are you saying that Jesus did not describe a higher form of love, over and above Phileo, and that his apostles did?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You did not comment on this verse about the New Covenant made in 500BC - did God say it or not?:

Isa 2:4 - they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

if Yes, then what of 9:14 Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and 2.216 Fighting is prescribed for you ..... ?

They didn't get the point that God gave them a way out because of his mercy for them

You are reading Isaiah like the Quran with its ambiguous teachings.

The verse in Isaiah does not mean that fasting is wrong but that it has to be accompanied by having faith and doing good.

No, the Isaiah verse does not say you have to technically fast, as in go without food, but the Torah verse does. Isaiah wants you to can the rule following and become "good" .... and Jesus later emphasised what Isaiah said.

Are you suggesting that people following the law of Moses have always been wrong and have chosen their own way, instead of the correct way (which you seem to think is zoroastrianism)?

I would read 'Who Wrote The Bible" by Freidman and also "The Bible Unearthed" by Drs Siberman and Finkelstein - we can start a new thread and I would be happy to discuss it with you. Let me know.

If people who make sacrifices have chosen their own way, it naturally means that the law of Moses is not God-Given and that the people who follow it are delighting in abominations which God hates and has always hated.

It wasn't.

This verse clearly does NOT say that people who make sacrifices are LIKE those who kill people and kill dogs and practice idolatry, but it merely says that those who make the sacrifices are killing people and dogs

It does not say that at all!

But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a man,
and whoever offers a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog's neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig's blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense,
like one who worships an idol.

You are reading it like the Quran where the convention is to have a harsh line then a softener, ie "don't ask questions, but then ask them", making the whole thing ambiguous and logically fallacious. NO, this is not the same sort of writing. These verses clearly clash with Mosaic Law, as Isaiah states that sacrifice is as henious to God as murder or animal cruelty.

What you are not understanding perhaps is the literary device of hyperbole. The Quan does not use these literary devices, but the writers of the post-exilic OT and NT all use hyperbole. This also confused Muhammad, as it does you. BTW, the accepted english translation in academia is the New Revised Standard Version. It is the newest translation and is based on the most up to date archeological findings.

This verse clearly states that following Mosaic Law, which was based on animal sacrifice and offerings, is not want God wants. But he is yet to send his Son to free the people from this human-imposed bondage completely.

of G-d, at a time when idolatry seemed to be taking root in the land, and he preached justice and charity at a time when the morals of the people reached a new low.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.htm/aid/112071/jewish/The-Prophet-Isaiah.html

This paragraph does not seem to come from a very good source, ie by the use of G-d instead of God shows that it is already a conservative fringe source. Isaiah was most likely started during the exile and then finished as late as 400BC. Some even say 200BC. The Jews lost Jerusalem in 570BC after they were conquered by the Babylonians. This was an enormous blow to the ego, as YHWH had promised to protect them forever. The loss of their temple and home caused an enormous amount of soul searching. After 70 years, Babylon was conquered by the Persians, and King Cyrus who became their heros. The Persians brought a new way of seeing God - a more ethical and philosophical approach to religion. In fact, Isaiah even quotes from the Persian's religious text; Zarathustra's Gathas (1200BC) in Isaiah 40;

Gathas Y 44: Who is the Creator and First Father of the Truth? Who laid down the path of sun and stars? Who causes the moon to wax and wane. All these and many other others I wish to know O, Mazda. 4: I ask you humbly, O Ahura, tell me truly. Who holds the earth and the heavens apart and prevents the latter from falling? Who is the sustainer of water and plants? Who makes the wind blow and clouds blow swiftly? Who is the Creator inspiring Good Thought, O Mazda? 5: I ask you humbly, O Ahura, tell me truly. Who is the Creator of light and darkness? What artist designed sleep and wakefulness, rest and activity? What artist created the dawn, the day and the night, guiding the wise man to fulfil his daily duties properly.

Isaiah 41.4 I, 40:12 Who has scooped up the ocean in his two hands, or measured the sky between his thumb and little finger, Who has put all the earth's dirt in one of his baskets, weighed each mountain and hill? 13 Who could ever have told God what to do or taught him his business? 14 What expert would he have gone to for advice, what school would he attend to learn justice? What god do you suppose might have taught him what he knows, showed him how things work? 26 Look at the night skies: Who do you think made all this? Who marches this army of stars out each night, counts them off, calls each by name - so magnificent! so powerful! - and never overlooks a single one?

Second Isaiah, ie 40-66 was added sometime before 200BC, and it is this section that Jesus quotes the most from.

So the people were making offerings to God while they broke the commandments.

If they didn't sacrifice or give offerings, celebrate new moons and fast, then they DID break commandments!

The verses are not about grace as you presume but about justice.

Because they were hyperbolic, as was the literary way of writing in those days; not to be taken literally!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɝbəli/ or "hy-PER-buh-lee"; "HY-per-bowl" is a mispronunciation) is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally.

Hyperbole is used to create emphasis. It is often used in poetry and is a literary device as well as a referendum.

Some examples include:

"He has a brain the size of a pea."
"I could eat a horse."
"I've heard that a million times."
"She is a hundred feet tall."

Derived from the Greek ὑπερβολή (literally 'overshooting' or 'excess')

Chabchaba

August 19th 2007, 12:09 PM

The "good news" and coming Christ concept goes all the way back to the prophet's books of the OT, and it was never considered a written book but "good news". The Hebrew word is "Basar", and it also means flesh, as well as good news;

Your quotes from Ireneus etc prove absolutely nothing and are not worth wasting time over.

Furthermore, you did not answer my question; Did Muhammad have access to this supposed hardcopy book of this "dicatated to Jesus" Injeel or not? Choose Yes or No?

Basar does not mean good news, it means flesh or person. The word for good news is besorah which is the feminine form of Basar. If the verse refers to Basar then it can only be about flesh or a person, and if it refers to Besorah, then it can only be about good news. Your conclusion is completely wrong. You can only find the mix-up between these terms in some christian sites which are desperate to prove that the good news (gospel - basoreh) is jesus christ (the person - basar). link (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/word/archive.html)
link (http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/gospel.html)

The connection between the two is that in ancient Hebrew custom, the good news was announced by slaughtering an animal and making a feast. The animal slaughter and the feast was not in itself good news because you can't make a feast to announce a feast , so Jesus can not be the sacrifice and the good news at the same time.

There are three options:

He is the good news (besorah) and there is no sacrifice.
He is the sacrifice (besorah), and the good news is something else (a book for example).
He is Basar (Person) and the good news (Besorah) is something he brought (a book for example).

The quotes from Iraneus and the others prove a lot. There was a book in existence before the canonical text were written.. What was this book, and what did it contain? And why are there so many quotes from Jesus which are not found in the existing gospels?

About the hardcopy of this text existing in Arabia I have already answered it. The answer is yes and no, and you can find the details of the answer in my previous posts above. I know you need a more specific answer so that you can base your further arguments on it but I'm sorry this is the best I can do for you. Just check the details and maybe you can base your further arguments on my stated position.

(I think in this instance you'll have to use a custom made answer instead of the copy/paste file of answers which you are using) :wink:

The "party line" of Christ was that one is saved by a Person, not a book. That's why God sent his Son on Christmas eve; he did not send a book (as Allah did on the night of Qadr). That "party line" goes way back to the OT prophecies, as I have already shown you. Nowhere in the OT does it say God will be sending a book, but a Savior.

The OT does not give much details. Like it does not mention th Holy Spirit, but there he was with Jesus. It does not mention a book either but that does not mean there can't be one.
Any texts or persons which went contrary to the party line were removed from the scene.

How does this prove that Jesus didn't die from his execution?

Was he crucified or was he stoned and hanged? was he killed by the jews or the romans? If you have conflicting scenarios even in the canonical gospels, how can you trust them? maybe the circumstances of his death are not anything like what the gospel says. perhaps he was a bad guy and was executed for his evil ways. Maybe it was all just fiction and there was no execution at all. We can never be sure about the true details unless we can trust the bible and we can't trust it because it is contradictory.

This does not prove or disprove the execution but it means that your evidence will be kicked out of any respectable courtroom hearings because your whole case is based on hearsay. That is unless you prove that God dictated the gospels and one of the versions is His testimony. :teeth:

It could be just like any mythological tale in any ancient culture where people are elevated to the status of gods and a class of priests arises and creates myths around these figures. In this instance the prototype for the mythology was already available in the OT prophesies and in the pagan mythology.
I believe that the gospels were rewritten to conform with the OT prophesies about the Messiah,and then there was a second rewriting to make it conform to pagan beliefs when christianity spread out to the gentiles, but that's an issue we can discuss some other time.

So, going back to your original point, are you saying that Jesus did not describe a higher form of love, over and above Phileo, and that his apostles did?

Neither he nor the apostles talked about love with the sense which you are talking about now. According to my evidence they used agapao and phileo to mean love in the sense of the aramaic language which made no distinction between the two. the two words meant the same thing to them according to the evidence which I have presented in which they repeatedly use it in reference to an object or person.

You did not comment on this verse about the New Covenant made in 500BC - did God say it or not?:

This is a reference to the second coming of Jesus, according to my understanding, and it is not a covenant, it is a description of something that will come in the future. a promise.

A covenant is a solemn agreement between two parties where there is a commitment and an expectation in return for this commitment, but in this instance there is no agreement, just a promise from God about a future event.

Now if the passage had mentioned something about Jesus and faith in him within the same context, then we can consider that it is a covenant.

The passage did not mention Jesus or mention agapao and phileo but it did mention a law.

3And gone have many peoples and said, `Come, and we go up unto the mount of Jehovah, Unto the house of the God of Jacob, And He doth teach us of His ways, And we walk in His paths, For from Zion goeth forth a law, And a word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.

Now I know that you're going to say that the verses refer to the coming of Jesus who is the word of God, but did jesus bring a law? I think not, and besides, Isaiah says these verses are not about Jesus. The last verse of the passage says:

22 Stop trusting in man,
who has but a breath in his nostrils.
Of what account is he?

No, the Isaiah verse does not say you have to technically fast, as in go without food, but the Torah verse does. Isaiah wants you to can the rule following and become "good" .... and Jesus later emphasised what Isaiah said.

Isaiah does not need to tell the people to technically fast because they are already abiding by the letter of the law.; What he needs to remind them about is the spirit of the law.

He was not making any new rules or changing the existing ones.

I made a google search about fasting in christianity, and so far all the christian sites which I have seen confirm my understanding.

It does not say that at all!

But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a man,
and whoever offers a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog's neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig's blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense,
like one who worships an idol.

This verse clearly states that following Mosaic Law, which was based on animal sacrifice and offerings, is not want God wants. But he is yet to send his Son to free the people from this human-imposed bondage completely.

According to the translation that you are using it means what you say, but according to Young's literal translation, the verse is ambiguous. It can be translated both ways. I prefer the translation which agrees with the historical context and agrees with the main message of the Torah.

I think that the very fact that Isaiah is considered a prophet shows clearly that everyone at his time understood his message as agreeing with the Torah just like I understand it. Otherwise he would have been considered a false prophet and stoned and hung on a tree :wink:

This paragraph does not seem to come from a very good source, ie by the use of G-d instead of God shows that it is already a conservative fringe source. Isaiah was most likely started during the exile and then finished as late as 400BC. Some even say 200BC. The Jews lost Jerusalem in 570BC after they were conquered by the Babylonians. This was an enormous blow to the ego, as YHWH had promised to protect them forever. The loss of their temple and home caused an enormous amount of soul searching. After 70 years, Babylon was conquered by the Persians, and King Cyrus who became their heros. The Persians brought a new way of seeing God - a more ethical and philosophical approach to religion. In fact, Isaiah even quotes from the Persian's religious text; Zarathustra's Gathas (1200BC) in Isaiah 40;

The passage comes from a jewish source that's why it says G-d.

The ancient egyptian scriptures say: "As truly as Osiris lives, so truly shall his follower live; as truly as Osiris is not dead he shall die no more; as truly as Osiris is not annihilated he shall not be annihilated."

Now although this sounds like the beliefs of christians about Jesus, it does not necessarily mean that the christians copied from the egyptians. It might just mean that two different people arrived at the same concept independently.

The similarity between the zoroastrian scriptures and the jewish scriptures also does not prove anything, as any person who believes in an almighty creator and wonders about God's creation might come up with the same thoughts. The only similarity is that both were wondering who created the wonderful things which he sees.

If they didn't sacrifice or give offerings, celebrate new moons and fast, then they DID break commandments!

I agree with that completely, but what they did is that they were sinning and breaking commandments and thinking that the sacrifices and offerings would be enough for them to attain salvation, just like christians today commit sins and believe that the sacrifice of Jesus is enough to atone for their sins.

Because they were hyperbolic, as was the literary way of writing in those days; not to be taken literally!

I disagree with you completely. The verses may or may not be hyperboles but the main message is clear in all cases:

Do good and God will make you prosper
Do bad and God will make you suffer

This is basic justice and not grace. And don't tell me about the studies which say that righteous people become happier in their lives, because some of the happiest people I know are bad according to any definition of morality except their own. Just like the people in the days of Isaiah who chose their own ways and their souls delighted in their abominations.

Narnian

August 19th 2007, 10:27 PM

Basar does not mean good news, it means flesh or person.
The word for good news is besorah which is the feminine form of Basar.

What you are referring to is the noun form. But Basar - spelt BSR in Hebrew means both flesh and "bringer of good news".

In the link pasted below you will find the lexicon where you can read it in Hebrew. You will find both BSR; good news messenger, BSR; flesh and BSRH; the good news:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DAMlHAULjcUC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=basar+lexicon+hebrew+flesh+%22good+news%22&source=web&ots=sMjUp97Zg0&sig=q1pEjsGS4FPhuvkyPpKFQBSZOis#PPA51,M1

And here they are from the NAS lexicon:

rXb a primitive root
Basar
baw-sar' Verb
Definition
to bear news, bear tidings, publish, preach, show forth (Piel) to gladden with good news to bear news to announce (salvation) as good news, preach (Hithpael) to receive good news

rXb
Basar
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
baw-sawr' Noun Masculine
Definition
flesh of the body of humans of animals the body itself male organ of generation (euphemism) kindred, blood-relations flesh as frail or erring (man against God) all living things animals mankind

It's pretty unmistakable when Paul actually translates the word "Basar" as "Injeelion":

Isa 52:7 How lovely on the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news (basar)
Rom 10:15 How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news (injeelion)

The connection between the two is that in ancient Hebrew custom, the good news was announced by slaughtering an animal and making a feast. The animal slaughter and the feast was not in itself good news because you can't make a feast to announce a feast , so Jesus can not be the sacrifice and the good news at the same time.

Indeed there is a connection. You're a smart man - surely you can spot the ideological link between "the sacrifice" and "the good news" in Christian terms?

There was a book in existence before the canonical text were written..

I did not see any proof of a text in existence before the NT was written. By the time of Ireneus, the entire NT had been written. There were later apocryphal books, but there is zero evidence that any of these were written during the three years of Jesus' ministry. Mark was considered the first gospel.

And why are there so many quotes from Jesus which are not found in the existing gospels?

Unlike muslims, people were not fixated on "quotes". They looked to Jesus as the "Basar" himself - Injeelion as a Person (not a book).

About the hardcopy of this text existing in Arabia I have already answered it.

So, if only parts were available, how was Muhammad supposed to know which quotes were from Jesus and which were from others, if he was just told to "consult the book of those before you if you are confused"? Surely Allah wouldn't send him to such a "corrupted" book to get "unconfused"? Please explain.

The OT does not give much details. Like it does not mention th Holy Spirit, but there he was with Jesus.

The Holy Spirit was only for prophets and God's chosen in the OT. This changed after Jesus died; the Holy Spirit was sent for everyone independently at Pentecost, so there is no more need of a prophet. That's the difference. (The word is Qodesh Ruwach in Hebrew)

Ps 51:11 -Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your holy spirit from me.
Isa 63:11 - Then they remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant. Where is the one who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is the one who put within them his holy spirit

We can never be sure about the true details unless we can trust the bible and we can't trust it because it is contradictory.

You cannot get outside of the mindset of Islam's concept of the Injeel. Muhammad thought it was a book, but God in fact sent his Son. The Injeel "book" was written by humans. But only Jesus the Christ is perfect. So, you can go looking for this perfect book, but you will never find it.

This does not prove or disprove the execution but it means that your evidence will be kicked out of any respectable courtroom hearings because your whole case is based on hearsay. That is unless you prove that God dictated the gospels and one of the versions is His testimony. :teeth:

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus actually died from his execution, but NONE whatsoever that he survived. It was a later gnostic idea that Jesus was made of pure spirit and could not be killed. These gnostics were persecuted by the early church and fled to places like arabia. That's where Muhammad got the idea from many centuries later.

I believe that the gospels were rewritten to conform with the OT prophesies about the Messiah,and then there was a second rewriting to make it conform to pagan beliefs when christianity spread out to the gentiles, but that's an issue we can discuss some other time.

I partially agree with you, but what you are referring to are the "trimmings" (ie the Christmas and Easter) not the main thrust of the teachings and meaning of Jesus, which is love, salvation and grace etc.

Neither he nor the apostles talked about love with the sense which you are talking about now. According to my evidence they used agapao and phileo to mean love in the sense of the aramaic language which made no distinction between the two.

Impossible to prove, but logically, if Jesus was the Christ, and that he described a higher form of love, then it is far more likely that Jesus used a Greek word where there was no aramaic - that's if he spoke aramaic to Peter. He could have spoken Greek. In fact, some recent scholars have concluded that Jesus came from a wealthy, highly educated family. If this is so, then Jesus would have undoubtedly spoken Greek.

This is a reference to the second coming of Jesus, according to my understanding, and it is not a covenant, it is a description of something that will come in the future. a promise.

No, it's about the time after the Jews return to Jerusalem, although conservative Christians will say it is about the time that Jesus comes for the first time. Here is the NRSV translation;

Isaiah 2 :1 The word that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 In days to come the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; all the nations shall stream to it. 3 Many peoples shall come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 4 He shall judge between the nations, and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

This verse is repeated in Micah 4

Do you know about Covenant Theology? It's an integral part of Jewish and Christian theology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology This is what Muhamamd missed as well.

The passage did not mention Jesus or mention agapao and phileo but it did mention a law.
3And gone have many peoples and said, `Come, and we go up unto the mount of Jehovah, Unto the house of the God of Jacob, And He doth teach us of His ways, And we walk in His paths, For from Zion goeth forth a law, And a word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. [Now I know that you're going to say that the verses refer to the coming of Jesus who is the word of God, but did jesus bring a law? I think not, and besides, Isaiah says these verses are not about Jesus. The last verse of the passage says:
22 Stop trusting in man,
who has but a breath in his nostrils.
Of what account is he?

Which verse is this and in which translation? :noid: Please resend verses in NRSV

Isaiah does not need to tell the people to technically fast because they are already abiding by the letter of the law.; What he needs to remind them about is the spirit of the law.

No, the bible is not written like the Quran, as I said. It does not have those "taqqiya" style verses, thank God.

He was not making any new rules or changing the existing ones.

See "New Covenants" in that link. This new covenant began after the exile when the Jews returned to Jerusalem.

I made a google search about fasting in christianity, and so far all the christian sites which I have seen confirm my understanding.

Christians do not have any fasting rules. That some do fast, is their business but God does not require any fasting. In fact, it's a stupid thing to do.

According to the translation that you are using it means what you say, but according to Young's literal translation, the verse is ambiguous. It can be translated both ways. I prefer the translation which agrees with the historical context and agrees with the main message of the Torah.

Don't be fooled by the "literal" in "Young's Literal Translation". It is a faulty translation published in 1862, before modern archeology, before the discovery of the DSSs and the Ugiatic language in the latter part of the 20th century. See here for a discussion; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_Literal_Translation

It is best to use the latest possible translation which is the NRSV;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version

Your preferences should not come into it. The modern translation of the Isaiah verse is clear - following Mosaic Law is hated by God. Muhammad did not have the full story.

I think that the very fact that Isaiah is considered a prophet shows clearly that everyone at his time understood his message as agreeing with the Torah just like I understand it. Otherwise he would have been considered a false prophet and stoned and hung on a tree :wink:

Not at all - after the exile and the influence of the Persians with their focus on ethics and philosophy, theological debate and disagreement was very much part of everyday life. Palistine was highly multicultural and multi religious-sect. Debates went on all the time. The Oxford Concise Companion to the Israelite Religion says these ‘tensions’ were recorded in some Israelite writings; “It was not only in Amoraic (ideological debates) times in Babylon that Judaism came into contact with Zoroastrianism, but it was in this period (after the exile) that the tensions between the adherents of the two religions were particularly acute”.

The similarity between the zoroastrian scriptures and the jewish scriptures also does not prove anything, as any person who believes in an almighty creator and wonders about God's creation might come up with the same thoughts. The only similarity is that both were wondering who created the wonderful things which he sees.

Pretty close coincidence then. Note both use the rhetorical questioning. The rhetorical question is a convention in the Gathas, but Isaiah only uses it for this passage. There are many other similarities. Jewish ideology changes radically after the exile and the similarities to Zoroastrianism are unmistakable.

I agree with that completely, but what they did is that they were sinning and breaking commandments and thinking that the sacrifices and offerings would be enough for them to attain salvation, just like christians today commit sins and believe that the sacrifice of Jesus is enough to atone for their sins.

Fasting, new moons, sacrifices and offerings etc were (and still are) distractions from internal transformation, because all these externals are caught up with ego and have nothing to do with one's inner self. It is much easier to fast, sacrifice and spot new moons ........ than it is to confront one's lack of love within.

I disagree with you completely. The verses may or may not be hyperboles but the main message is clear in all cases:

Anyone who has studied Greek and Hebrew literature will realise that hyperbole was (and still is) the manner in which these people expressed themselves. Of course you're going to disagree, because if you agree with me (and all ancient literature scholars) then you also have to disagree with Muhammad and Islam. So, don't worry; I dont' expect you to agree :wink: :lol:

Do good and God will make you prosper
Do bad and God will make you suffer

This is basic justice and not grace.

It is NOT grace at all - it is simply reward and punishment!! :lol:

Chabchaba

August 20th 2007, 10:24 AM

What you are referring to is the noun form. But Basar - spelt BSR in Hebrew means both flesh and "bringer of good news".

It's easy for me to understand because the arabic words are very similar. bashar means person and bishara means good news.

They are two different terms and the similarity in the root of the two words does not mean that they are interchangeable. They are pronounced differently and they mean different things and one of them cannot mean the other. The vowels can be ommitted in writing but they make all the difference.

I did not see any proof of a text in existence before the NT was written. By the time of Ireneus, the entire NT had been written. There were later apocryphal books, but there is zero evidence that any of these were written during the three years of Jesus' ministry. Mark was considered the first gospel.

All the early christians were in agreement that Matthew wrote the first gospel in Hebrew but they noticed a lot of differences between the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and their beliefs, so they concluded that it had been corrupted by the "heretics" but it was there from a very early date.

There is no conclusive historical and archeological evidence, because the people who destroyed the books of the opposing christian sects were not concerned about historians and archaeologists in the future.

Unlike muslims, people were not fixated on "quotes". They looked to Jesus as the "Basar" himself - Injeelion as a Person (not a book).

So, if only parts were available, how was Muhammad supposed to know which quotes were from Jesus and which were from others, if he was just told to "consult the book of those before you if you are confused"? Surely Allah wouldn't send him to such a "corrupted" book to get "unconfused"? Please explain.

They only knew Jesus through the book. The books which remained gave them an incomplete picture of Jesus, but even from these incomplete picture, some people who have questioned the authority of hte church and its claims about christianity have been able to find the truth which is, Jesus is not God and people have to stick to the law still there in the gospels.

You can consult this book to get unconfused too, if you want. Just reject the notion that the church has a monopoly of the truth and search for the true Jesus in the writings of all his followers, heretic and orthodox alike and you will find the truth there.

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus actually died from his execution, but NONE whatsoever that he survived. It was a later gnostic idea that Jesus was made of pure spirit and could not be killed. These gnostics were persecuted by the early church and fled to places like arabia. That's where Muhammad got the idea from many centuries later.

I partially agree with you, but what you are referring to are the "trimmings" (ie the Christmas and Easter) not the main thrust of the teachings and meaning of Jesus, which is love, salvation and grace etc.

The idea that Jesus could not be killed comes from the apocalypse of Peter which is one of the earliest books written. The fact that gnostics believed in it does not make it less credible than the ones accepted by the early church.

The teachings of the early church were shaped by a powerful minority while the "heresies" were generally the religion of the masses who were distant from the philosophical debating going on between the hellenized leaders of Christianity. The beliefs of these leaders only became mainstream after many centuries.

It is not just the trimmings which is borrowed from pagan sources, it is almost everything about christianity, including the concept of the word being the creator (greek philosophy), the eucharist (The cult of Osiris and the Zoroastrian Haoma) and the divinity of a man (quintessential pagan belief).

The belief about the Logos as a saviour is also based on greek philosophy expounded in the writings of Philo of Alexandria.

Impossible to prove, but logically, if Jesus was the Christ, and that he described a higher form of love, then it is far more likely that Jesus used a Greek word where there was no aramaic - that's if he spoke aramaic to Peter. He could have spoken Greek. In fact, some recent scholars have concluded that Jesus came from a wealthy, highly educated family. If this is so, then Jesus would have undoubtedly spoken Greek.

Nothing here is impossible to prove. The apostles are recorded to have used the word agapao in a sense different from, and incompatible with how you understand it. So either they misunderstood Jesus or they didn' know greek. another option is that Jesus did not have the concept which you have.

Do you know about Covenant Theology? It's an integral part of Jewish and Christian theology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology This is what Muhamamd missed as well.

The quran mentions the covenants many times. This is one of them:

And remember We took from the Prophets their Covenant: as (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn Covenant: - Holy Quran 33:7 [2]

The verses which you quoted from Isaiah do not constitute a covenant, because they don't fit with the definition of a covenant. They are simply a promise and it has yet to be fulfilled.

Which verse is this and in which translation? :noid: Please resend verses in NRSV

That was Young's literal translation

Here is the NRSV translation:
22Turn away from mortals,
who have only breath in their nostrils,
for of what account are they?

And here is the Jewish Tanakh translation of the same verse:
(22) Cease ye from man, in whose nostrils is a breath; for how little is he to be accounted!

Christians do not have any fasting rules. That some do fast, is their business but God does not require any fasting. In fact, it's a stupid thing to do.

You think so because you believe that Zoroastrianism is the origin of Christianity and it does not have fasting, but I think that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies in the Torah, as well as the prophesies in the Zoroastrian scriptures. There is one true God only but some people called him Mazda and some called him YHWH, while others called him other names so, to me, it is totally acceptable that Isaiah was 100% jewish and yet his beliefs were similar to zoroastrianism.

Islam recognizes this fact in the verse which lists those who worship God as several groups which include the Magians, and those who worship other gods as another group:

Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and those who associate (others with Allah)-- surely Allah will decide between them on the day of resurrection; surely Allah is a witness over all things.

Also in a Hadith the prophet says: "Treat the Magians in a way similar to that of Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book)."

You, on the other hand believe that YHWH is not God and that Moses was not a prophet, but a servant of Ahrimen.

Your preferences should not come into it. The modern translation of the Isaiah verse is clear - following Mosaic Law is hated by God. Muhammad did not have the full story.

I think that you don't have the full story, but of course my opinion does not prove anything unless I can provide solid evidence. so far you are just stating your opinions and interpretations which are far from conclusive.

I still prefer the literal translation, because the original text is ambiguous in many cases and can only be interpreted according to the translator's bias. I can use recent jewish translations and they would be in a agreement with my interpretation, while you prefer the mainstream christian translations because they agree with your interpretation.

Fasting, new moons, sacrifices and offerings etc were (and still are) distractions from internal transformation, because all these externals are caught up with ego and have nothing to do with one's inner self. It is much easier to fast, sacrifice and spot new moons ........ than it is to confront one's lack of love within.

They don't distract anyone from anything. there were laws and rituals in Judaism and in Zoroastrianism and even the disciples of Jesus did not believe that the laws were nullified by Jesus, until Paul came with his message and no one was distracted. They only distracted people when the people believed that sacrifices can atone for their sins. (This goes for Christians too)

The zoroastrian rituals included sacrifices:
We sacrifice to Ashi Vanguhi, who is shining, high, tall-formed, well worthy of sacrifice, with a loud-sounding chariot, strong, welfare-giving, healing, with fulness of intellect 5, and powerful;
XVII. ASHI YAST.

and also ritual purification and prayers:
According to Zoroastrian doctrine, every RELIGIOUS RITUAL serves more than a limted corporeal function; IT AIDS IN THE FINAL RENOVATION OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. The Pahlavi commentary to the Videvdat (Vendidad) emphasizes: "Purity of man [and] purity of the soul is best from birth (5:21)" thus the Zoroastrian purification rituals not only cleanse the physical body but ALSO PURIFY THE SOUL through prayers uttered during such rituals.
http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/pallan33.html
There are three types of purification, in order of increasing importance: the padyab, or ablution; the nahn, or bath; and the bareshnum, a complicated ritual performed at special places with the participation of a dog--whose left ear is touched by the candidate and whose gaze puts the evil spirits to flight--and lasting several days.
http://www.ebionite.org/zoro.htm#Ceremonies.
Also certain foods were avoided because they belong to the evil counter creation. These include birds of prey and "hideous fish." Carrion is regarded as impure as is any food coming into contact with it.

Besides, Zoroastrianism does not believe that the saviour will be the only begotten of Ahura Mazda but the seed of Zoroaster himself, and also does not envision him as dying to atone for sins, but as a bringer of justice, so this does not fit with Jesus as you see him. On the other hand, Jesus, as I see him, does fit the description, because he was born from a virgin, and was not God or the only befotten son of God.

And by the way, You'll find more clearly zoroastrian beliefs in the writings of the gnostic sects, not in the writings of the mainstream christians.

Narnian

August 20th 2007, 10:05 PM

It's easy for me to understand because the arabic words are very similar. bashar means person and bishara means good news.

This is Hebrew, not arabic. The lexicon shows very clearly the spelling of those words in Hebrew, and they are the same.

I will show you some more examples where Jesus blasphemes Mosaic Law. If you realise how serious the strict Jews were about their Law, this looks like a complete send-up and shows that Jesus had a sense of humour;

The Prodigal Son comes straight from the pigs into the arms of his father (God):

15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. 16 He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; ............. 20 So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him.

another verse that is blasphemous is this one; "yeast" was associated with decadence, and it was the Law to leave it out in reverence to YHWH. See here for all the Mosaic laws about not using yeast: http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?section=3&word=yeast&version=niv
Here Jesus refers to God's kingdom as yeast and that a "woman" put it in the bread is even worse! :lol:

Mt 13:33 - He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened."

More to come .....

All the early christians were in agreement that Matthew wrote the first gospel in Hebrew but they noticed a lot of differences between the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and their beliefs, so they concluded that it had been corrupted by the "heretics" but it was there from a very early date.

It depends which region you lived in. Matthew was written in Antioch in 70-80AD with a large population of Zoroastrians. That's why you find so much Z influence in that gospel. What people thought is a different matter to what scholarly research demonstrates.

You can consult this book to get unconfused too, if you want. Just reject the notion that the church has a monopoly of the truth and search for the true Jesus in the writings of all his followers, heretic and orthodox alike and you will find the truth there.

I do, but I use liberal scholars as a guide. One of the best books for this is The Jesus Seminar "The Five Gospels".

The idea that Jesus could not be killed comes from the apocalypse of Peter which is one of the earliest books written. The fact that gnostics believed in it does not make it less credible than the ones accepted by the early church.

It is far from the earliest.
Apocalypse of Peter (Akhmim)
Estimated Range of Dating: 100-150 C.E.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocalypsepeter.html

Please send the quote from this book about Jesus not dying. I have never heard of it, and Wiki does not mention it either.

It is not just the trimmings which is borrowed from pagan sources, it is almost everything about christianity, including the concept of the word being the creator (greek philosophy), the eucharist (The cult of Osiris and the Zoroastrian Haoma) and the divinity of a man (quintessential pagan belief).

You are still referring to "trimmings".

The belief about the Logos as a saviour is also based on greek philosophy expounded in the writings of Philo of Alexandria.

Logos goes further back than that - it is found in the Gathas. It is the same concept of "Asha" which is "Rta" in Sanskrit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asha#_note-DG_1963_48_49
Asha
The correspondence between 'truth', reality, and an all-encompassing cosmic principle is not far removed from Heraclitus' conception of Logos.

The idea of the Logos being born as a person originates in Zoroastrianism, as well as being found in Isaiah.

"Asha" is represented by the element of fire, which is called the Son of Ahura Mazda (God)
http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/son33.html

So, if we just switch the Greek for the Avestan we get this;

John 1 In the beginning was Asha, and Asha was with God, and Asha was God. ....14 And Asha became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.

Only Muhammad erroneously thought that God sent a book. The idea of the Logos becoming Flesh goes way back to Zarathustra.

The quran mentions the covenants many times. This is one of them:

And remember We took from the Prophets their Covenant: as (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn Covenant: - Holy Quran 33:7 [2]

The verses which you quoted from Isaiah do not constitute a covenant, because they don't fit with the definition of a covenant. They are simply a promise and it has yet to be fulfilled.

It isn't just a verse here and there that "proof texts" a New Covenant. The entire teachings of the major prophets are about the post-exilic New Covenant. It's impossible to miss, especially if you imagine the Jews being exiled, and then "redeemed" by the Persian invaders/rescuers. It is basic Jewish and Christian doctrine, and the most important NC for Jews.

Muhammad, though, DID miss it. :hrm:

And here is the Jewish Tanakh translation of the same verse:
(22) Cease ye from man, in whose nostrils is a breath; for how little is he to be accounted!

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove to me with this verse :noid:

You think so because you believe that Zoroastrianism is the origin of Christianity and it does not have fasting,

No, that is not the reason I think fasting is a pointless exercise. I arrived at my conclusion using logical deduction, and the brain God gave me. :smile:

but I think that Jesus fulfilled the prophesies in the Torah, as well as the prophesies in the Zoroastrian scriptures.

That's what I've been trying to say all along.

There is one true God only but some people called him Mazda and some called him YHWH, while others called him other names so, to me,

The "one true God" rhetoric doesn't prove anything. Jim Jones, David Koresh, the 9/11 hijackers and Heaven's Gate all had the "one true God". :ahem:

it is totally acceptable that Isaiah was 100% jewish and yet his beliefs were similar to zoroastrianism.

I agree

Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabeans and the Christians and the Magians and those who associate (others with Allah)-- surely Allah will decide between them on the day of resurrection; surely Allah is a witness over all things.

And then you have verses telling you to not make friends with Christians and Jews, to slay infidels, to make non muslims be subdued and pay tax, that you should murder until there is no fitna. Sorry, your verse does not convince me of anything. :ahem:

Also in a Hadith the prophet says: "Treat the Magians in a way similar to that of Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book)."

There is another verse in the Hadith where Muhammad murders Magians, and there is no reason given.

I still prefer the literal translation, because the original text is ambiguous in many cases and can only be interpreted according to the translator's bias.

You are using a faulty translation and it is not "literal" because it is full of errors. Except for the gender inclusive language, NRSV is the most literal - why do scholars and academics only choose this version. Why do none choose that 150 year old one that you are quoting from?

I can use recent jewish translations and they would be in a agreement with my interpretation, while you prefer the mainstream christian translations because they agree with your interpretation.

If I had a personal, emotional preference, I would choose The Message :teeth: I LOVE that translation. NRSV is dry compared to it. The Message is written in the same passionate and colloquial manner of the speakers of Koine Greek. Here is a sample.

Romans 12:1-21
1 So here's what I want you to do, God helping you: Take your everyday, ordinary life - your sleeping, eating, going-to-work, and walking-around life - and place it before God as an offering. Embracing what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him. 2 Don't become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking. Instead, fix your attention on God. You'll be changed from the inside out. Readily recognize what he wants from you, and quickly respond to it. Unlike the culture around you, always dragging you down to its level of immaturity, God brings the best out of you, develops well-formed maturity in you. 3 I'm speaking to you out of deep gratitude for all that God has given me, and especially as I have responsibilities in relation to you. Living then, as every one of you does, in pure grace, it's important that you not misinterpret yourselves as people who are bringing this goodness to God. No, God brings it all to you. The only accurate way to understand ourselves is by what God is and by what he does for us, not by what we are and what we do for him.

The zoroastrian rituals included sacrifices:
We sacrifice to Ashi Vanguhi, who is shining, high, tall-formed, well worthy of sacrifice, with a loud-sounding chariot, strong, welfare-giving, healing, with fulness of intellect 5, and powerful;
XVII. ASHI YAST.

Sacrifice was and is abhorrent to Zoroastrians because it involves "death" which they avoid at all costs. They believe that Ahriman has more power whereve there is death. That's why they go to extremes to avoid contact with anything dead. Killing a cow was the same as killing "mother earth", as Cow and Earth (Gao) were the same word (like Basar means flesh and good-news!).

Yazata- is originally an adjective derived from the verbal root yaz- "to worship, to honor, to venerate". From the same root comes Avestan yasna "worship, sacrifice, prayer". A yazata is accordingly "a being worthy of worship" or "a holy being".
Related terms in other languages are Sanskrit yájati "he worships, he sacrifices", yajatá- "worthy of worship, holy", yajñá "sacrifice", and Greek ἅγιος hagios "devoted to the gods, sacred, holy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazata

and also ritual purification and prayers:

These rituals were later additions to Zoroastrianism. That's why Jesus goes out of his way to touch and hang out with "impure" people. He also touches dead people which not only goes against Mosaic Law, but Zoroastrian purification beliefs;

Num 19:11 He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.12 He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.14 (you can't even be in the same tent as a dead person!) This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.

Matt 9:18 While he was saying these things to them, suddenly a leader of the synagogue F70 came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live."

Luke 7 13 When the Lord saw her, he had compassion for her and said to her, "Do not weep." 14 Then he came forward and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, "Young man, I say to you, rise!" 15 The dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus F63 gave him to his mother.

Besides, Zoroastrianism does not believe that the saviour will be the only begotten of Ahura Mazda but the seed of Zoroaster himself,

Urr, no. You are referring to apocryphal Z myths that are not accepted in mainstrream Z. There was a later (still BC though) belief that there would be 3 Saoshynts (Teachers) to come. Zarathustra says this in 1200BC of teachers to come:

46 2 Teach me about Asha (The Logos); the riches of good mind. 3: When will the day dawn when humanity seeks Asha (The Logos) through the wise teachings of your Teachers?

48:12: It will be to the Teachers of the world who are wise and who follow their call of duty in Asha (Logos) through Insightful Conscience. They are, in truth, vanquishers of hate and anger.

and also does not envision him as dying to atone for sins, but as a bringer of justice

If you read Zarathustra's Gathas, it is clear that the job of humans is to transform themselves, ie our inner beings, not to get into justice issues, which is God's business.

so this does not fit with Jesus as you see him. On the other hand, Jesus, as I see him, does fit the description, because he was born from a virgin, and was not God or the only befotten son of God.

Born of a virgin was an ancient zoroastrian-pagan myth which - logically speaking - is highly likely to have been added to the Matthew gospel to convince the Antioch citizens that Jesus was their savior as well as the Jews. Is it any coincidence that the Matthew gospel has the Magi following the "Morning Star" (see sura 86) to find their next Saoshynt?

Chabchaba

August 21st 2007, 08:31 AM

This is Hebrew, not arabic. The lexicon shows very clearly the spelling of those words in Hebrew, and they are the same.

They are not arabic but, Just like in arabic, without the diacritical marks they might look the same but they are still completely different if you add these marks. The diacritical marks are the substitute for short vowels in both Hebrew and Arabic, that is why I made the comparison.

There is another verse in the Hadith where Muhammad murders Magians, and there is no reason given.

Reference please. In fact I will appreciate it if you give me a reference that he has met any Magians at all. I have searched and so far I have found nothing at all about that.

Born of a virgin was an ancient zoroastrian-pagan myth which - logically speaking - is highly likely to have been added to the Matthew gospel to convince the Antioch citizens that Jesus was their savior as well as the Jews. Is it any coincidence that the Matthew gospel has the Magi following the "Morning Star" (see sura 86) to find their next Saoshynt?

As I said I believe that the religion of Magis is one of the God-inspired religions, just like judaism and christianity, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were expecting a Messiah, however this messiah or saoshyant was not the son of God.

There are some theories that the Pharisees were influenced by Zoroastrianism during the exile in Babylon and that the name Pharisees is derived from Farsis (Persians) in reference to the origin of their sect's beleifs.

The Pharisees were the sect most preoccupied with the requirements of ritual purification just like the zoroastrians and their proccupation with rituals was their most obvious feature.

Jesus says:

[19] Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

This to me is clear concession from Jesus that the law has to be abided by, and that even the law is not enough, for the righteousness of Christian had to surpass even the Pharisees who were the most law abiding people at the time, because the Pharisees had outward devotion only. The christians were supposed to have devotion from outwards and from the inside.

If Jesus wanted to say that the law was useless, he wouldn't have referred to it or made a comparison to the Pharisees, whose only distinction from the others was their abidance by the law, he would have just made an argument about facing the lack of love within and that would have made his point very clear or he would have clearly denounced the law and the Pharisees. I think that he said what he really meant and he made it clear enough, at least for me.

Christianity was more affected by the Mithraic sub-cult of Zoroastrianism, which was very different from Zoraostrianism but was more widespread in the Roman Empire. A lot of Christian Churches stand on the sites of mithraeums (Mithraic Temples), and this is supported by the fact that the Christian Sabbath and Festivals coincide with the Mithraic dates for the same.

The symbolic roots of the ritual of haoma are not similar to the eucharist but the mithraic cult had a ritual which is more similar to the christian ritual.

Constantine merged christianity with mithraism to appease both the christians and the pagans, and this is the reason why christianity has some things in common with zoroastrianism. It is the later influence coming from the Mitraic cult and not from Jesus being a Zoroastrian. The problem is that the influence was not only on the fluff of christianity but it spread to a lot of the core beliefs of Christianity. It became very different from the Judaist background which it came from.

Narnian

August 21st 2007, 09:31 PM

Reference please.

I think this was it:

Book 19, Number 3037:
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:
Amr ibn Aws and AbulSha'tha' reported that Bujalah said: I was secretary to Jaz' ibn Mu'awiyah, the uncle of Ahnaf ibn Qays.
A letter came to us from Umar one year before his death, saying: Kill every magian, separate the relatives of prohibited degrees from the Magians, and forbid them to murmur (before eating). So we killed three magians in one day, and separated from a Magian husband his wife of a prohibited degree according to the Book of Allah.
He prepared abundant food and called them, and placed the sword on his thigh. They ate (the food) but did not murmur. They threw (on the ground) one or two mule-loads of silver. Umar did not take jizyah from Magians until AbdurRahman ibn Awf witnessed that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had taken jizyah from the Magians of Hajar.

and this certainly doesn't reflect a person of God;

Book 40, Number 4674:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Qadariyyah are the Magians of this community. If they are ill, do not pay a sick visit to them, and if they die, do not attend their funerals.

contrasted to Jesus:

Matt 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.

Jesus says:

[19] Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

If Jesus wanted to say that the law was useless, he wouldn't have referred to it or made a comparison to the Pharisees, whose only distinction from the others was their abidance by the law, he would have just made an argument about facing the lack of love within

Until all is accomplished ... his death accomplishes the mission. So until that moment, the law remains, since there is yet no replacement.

Jesus is using the ancient literary convention of hyperbole again. Anyone would know that it is impossible to surpass perfection. I repeat that you cannot read the NT like the Quran. :lol:

the Pharisees, whose only distinction from the others was their abidance by the law, he would have just made an argument about facing the lack of love within

He did. See the sermon on the Woes at a dinner party with the Pharisees in Matthew 23:13-33
It is a passionate speech against "externals" which are nothing but a distraction from the real "internal" transformation.

Ro 12:2 - Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God what is good and acceptable and perfect.

It doesn't say "follow the rules to find out what is good and bad" .... it says to be transformed, renew your minds and then you will be able to discern naturally.

Note that Moses used to wear a veil over his face after he received the Law on the mountain.

2 Cor 3:13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. 14 But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.

2Co 3:18 - And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.

You did not comment on the son who went straight from the pigsty into the loving embrace of God, nor did you comment on the yeast as a simile for God's Kingdom.

Here's something else:

Mark 2.21No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth (Injeel) on an old garment (Law); if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 2.22 And no one puts new wine (Injeel) into old wineskins (Law); if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins."

and this:

Here the exiled and lost-in-the-desert Jews from Eygpt ask YHWH for food, but he sends a snakes instead;

Numbers 21: The people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we detest this miserable food." Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died

Here Jesus says that not even a human would give his child a snake if he asked for food, and furthermore, God will give even more that what we ask;

Luke 11:11 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? Or if the child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

and that would have made his point very clear or he would have clearly denounced the law and the Pharisees. I think that he said what he really meant and he made it clear enough, at least for me.

The "fig tree" metaphor that Jesus uses is "the law" (this is not just my idea; it is from scholars). Read these verses substituting "Law" in place of "fig tree";

Mt 21:19 -
And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once. When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?" Jesus answered them, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, "Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done.

Mr 11:13 - Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. .... Then Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered."

Lu 13:6 - Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. So he said to the gardener, "See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?'

You muslims are still hanging onto that fig tree ..... and it has not borne any fruit for you. :noid:

Christianity was more affected by the Mithraic sub-cult of Zoroastrianism, which was very different from Zoraostrianism but was more widespread in the Roman Empire. A lot of Christian Churches stand on the sites of mithraeums (Mithraic Temples), and this is supported by the fact that the Christian Sabbath and Festivals coincide with the Mithraic dates for the same.

These are trimmings again, and I'm so glad we have them because I love Christmas festivities ..... and easter eggs. :teeth:

The symbolic roots of the ritual of haoma are not similar to the eucharist but the mithraic cult had a ritual which is more similar to the christian ritual.

Please explain the differences between the Mithraic and the Zoroastrian eucharists.

It became very different from the Judaist background which it came from.

If you are saying that Zoroastrianism came from Judaism I would be interested in seeing your proof.

Until the Persian invasion, the Jews were henotheistic pagans. Their religion was about appeasement, doing magic tricks, and superstitions of a warrior totem-god.

Chabchaba

August 22nd 2007, 05:08 AM

I think this was it:

Book 19, Number 3037:
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:
Amr ibn Aws and AbulSha'tha' reported that Bujalah said: I was secretary to Jaz' ibn Mu'awiyah, the uncle of Ahnaf ibn Qays.
A letter came to us from Umar one year before his death, saying: Kill every magian, separate the relatives of prohibited degrees from the Magians, and forbid them to murmur (before eating). So we killed three magians in one day, and separated from a Magian husband his wife of a prohibited degree according to the Book of Allah.
He prepared abundant food and called them, and placed the sword on his thigh. They ate (the food) but did not murmur. They threw (on the ground) one or two mule-loads of silver. Umar did not take jizyah from Magians until AbdurRahman ibn Awf witnessed that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had taken jizyah from the Magians of Hajar.

and this certainly doesn't reflect a person of God;

apparently you don't know the difference between Umar Ibn AlKhattab and Mohammed PBUH. The narration is clearly untrue because you can't kill all Magians and then separate the relatives of prohibited degrees of the Magians (who should all be dead already), and you can't forbid a dead Magian from murmuring (before eating), and besides, the narration is very different from what you said which is that: There is another verse in the Hadith where Muhammad murders Magians, and there is no reason given.
Now where is there a reference where Muhammad killed Magians or ordered them to be killed?

Jesus is using the ancient literary convention of hyperbole again. Anyone would know that it is impossible to surpass perfection. I repeat that you cannot read the NT like the Quran. :lol:

They were not perfect, and he didn't say that and clearly did not think it. He meant that people should adhere to the law like them and also stick also to the weightier parts of the law which the Pharisees did not stick to: justice and mercy and faithfulness. I don't believe that Jesus really said the verses at the end of Mat 23 because they don't fit in with his message:

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, [6] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

But I believe that he did say:

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the LAW: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

You did not comment on the son who went straight from the pigsty into the loving embrace of God, nor did you comment on the yeast as a simile for God's Kingdom.

The prodigal son's story is one of repentance, and the one about yeast does not prove anything.

The "fig tree" metaphor that Jesus uses is "the law" (this is not just my idea; it is from scholars). Read these verses substituting "Law" in place of "fig tree";

Mt 21:19 -
And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once. When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?" Jesus answered them, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, "Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done.

Mr 11:13 - Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. .... Then Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered."

Lu 13:6 - Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. So he said to the gardener, "See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?'

You muslims are still hanging onto that fig tree ..... and it has not borne any fruit for you. :noid:

If this was in reference to the law, it would have referred to the replacement of the fig tree. The guy in the parable cut the fig tree probably to replace it with another tree.

Please explain the differences between the Mithraic and the Zoroastrian eucharists.

According to Tertullian the meal in the Mithras cult was a 'devilish imitation of the Eucharist', and the apologist adds that the initiates of Mithras enacted the resurrection as well. They firmly believed that by eating the bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again just as life itself had once been created anew from the bull's blood. This food and drink were supposed not only to give physical strength but also to bring salvation to the soul which would in time achieve rebirth and eternal light. link (http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php)

Tertullian's remark shows clearly how similar the rites, which involved flesh and blood, were to the christian one, and of course now we know who was imitating who :wink:

The Zoroastrian rituals were more elaborate and did not involve flesh and blood, real or imaginary, but they involved milk, pomegranate twigs and consecrated water, and rather than giving the participant life they were an offering to the sacred elements, water and fire. The intention of the zaoθras to fire and water appears to be to purify and strengthen the inner forces (mainyu-) of these two creations and through them the inner forces of the earth, plants, and animals, so that they may better withstand the polluting attacks of evil.link (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/haoma_ritual.htm)

If you are saying that Zoroastrianism came from Judaism I would be interested in seeing your proof.

I didn't say that, because I don't even know for sure when Zoroastrianism started, and I'm sure that it had its roots in Hinduism. I said that the roots of christianity are in Judaiam, and that Christianity was later influenced by Mithraism and shifted away from its Judaistic roots due to the influence of the Pagans like Constantine who combined the two religions to stop the conflicts between his subjects. When he was baptized at his deathbed, he was baptized as a follower of the new religion which he had helped to create.

Until the Persian invasion, the Jews were henotheistic pagans. Their religion was about appeasement, doing magic tricks, and superstitions of a warrior totem-god.

That's a very incomplete picture. You see it that way because you want to see it that way, but there's much more to it.

Any way, I have quoted a verse where Jesus says that the Pharisees should adhere to the law including the weighty matters which they had neglected, and I'm still waiting for you to give me a reference where Jesus, or for that matter any of the gospel writers said that the law is bad and that it stops people from attaining salvation. Even Paul did not say that, but he emphasized faith over the law.

If you have a clear cut case please make it, but if it's just ambiguous parables and faulty deductions and personal opinions from you, then we can just agree to disagree :smile:

Narnian

August 22nd 2007, 09:12 AM

Now where is there a reference where Muhammad killed Magians or ordered them to be killed?

His mates killed them, and Muhammad got the booty. :ahem:

Also you didn't defend this;

Book 40, Number 4674:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Qadariyyah are the Magians of this community. If they are ill, do not pay a sick visit to them, and if they die, do not attend their funerals.

I don't believe that Jesus really said the verses at the end of Mat 23 because they don't fit in with his message:

But I believe that he did say:
]

This is all just circular reasoning, because your "Jesus" is the Quran Jesus and if he doesn't fit the Quran Jesus then it's not Jesus, because it doesnt' fit the Quran Jesus .... and so on ad infinitum.

Look to what the scholars say on Matt 23:23. In my Jesus Seminar book, these words are marked in black. If you are familiar with this book you will know that this means that most scholars disagree that Jesus spoke them. (Red is most likely, pink very likely, green less likely and black unlikely). There is also an explanation that says this;

"Matt and Luke each modify the wording in the direction of their own interestes, so that it is difficult to determine the Q version. It is also a bit surprising that the tithing of herbs is not itself criticized; this oversight seems unlike Jesus. Black is the appropriate colour." (p.243)

It seems that the writer may have wanted to keep the tithing going.

On another subject, I am still waiting on proof from you that Christianity is meant to be about a book, not about the Person of Christ.

The prodigal son's story is one of repentance, and the one about yeast does not prove anything.

I am not concerned with what's it's about, in this thread, but that the son goes straight from the pigsty into his "Father's" arms . That, and the yeast story would have been highly offensive and shocking. In fact, I'm surprised that more muslims aren't offended by the "from pigsty to God" issue. :hehe:

Do you believe that Jesus told these stories?

The JS seminars quote The Prodigal son story is in "Pink" ..... and the yeast story in "red" - highly likely to have been said by Jesus.

If this was in reference to the law, it would have referred to the replacement of the fig tree. The guy in the parable cut the fig tree probably to replace it with another tree.

Makes no sense. There are many people who speak out against Islam, but they don't seek to "replace" it with anything. If I throw out my rubbish, I don't look for something else to go in my rubbish bin to replace it. :uhoh:

The Zoroastrian rituals were more elaborate and did not involve flesh and blood, real or imaginary, but they involved milk, pomegranate twigs and consecrated water

You forgot the most important part of the Haoma ceremony, and that was the Haoma itself. This was an intoxicant like wine, and it was believed to carry the "spirit" of Zarathustra. It was blessed in silver cups with a sacred prayer, and all would drink from it. It is connected to the Amesha Spenta "Ameratat" which means Immortality (Ameratat (Avestan) is "A" = not, like "Im" and meratat = mortality = Immortality) .... as in "Everlasting Life".

John 6:54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.

From the Gathas:
10.17 From the silver cup I pour (Haoma drink) to the golden chalice over. Let me not the (sacred) liquor spill to earth, of precious cost.
*(Ref?) The sacred mortar, the sacred cups, the Haoma, the Word taught by Mazda, these are my weapons, my best weapons!

Blood was considered a metaphor for Spirit.

1John 5:8 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

Those who partake in the ceremony are granted immortality. Just as the Eucharist resprents the giving of eternal life.

and rather than giving the participant life they were an offering to the sacred elements, water and fire. The intention of the zaoθras to fire and water appears to be to purify and strengthen the inner forces (mainyu-) .

Living Waters in Avestan is Zao-Abtro
Living Waters in NT Greek is; Zao-Hudor

Zao means Living as it does in Avestan. "Zoe" in Greek "Life" in Greek, but different from "Bios" (biological life). Zoe means "spiritual life" in the herenow. This "Life" is represented by "Water" in the NT (and Isaiah). Islam does NOT have this concept. It only has life in the hereafter.

Joh 4:10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, "Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." The woman said to him, "Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? …. "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again,

Joh 7:38 and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, "Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water. (“heart” in Greek Koilia, also means “innermost being”).

That's why baptism is an important ritual for Christians (though not essential). The water represents the Living Water that gives the believer life herenow and hereafter, and the eucharist for life hereafter. These Two Gifts are basic Christian Doctrine, as they are Zoroastrian, straight from the Gathas;

31.6: The wise man who propagates the true religion and makes the people aware of my holy word (Mantra), which leads them to Wholeness and Immortality, will enjoy the highest bliss ..... 33.8: Show me clearly my goal and purpose, so that I may achieve my mission through The Holy Spirit and pursue devotion . Please accept my words of praise, inspired by truth and a pure heart, and grant me Wholeness and Immortality. 9: These two great powers of yours, O Mazda, which are promoters of righteousness, can be achieved only through wisdom and divine insight. May we attain the blessings of these two mighty and equal powers through The Holy Spirit.

I didn't say that, because I don't even know for sure when Zoroastrianism started

The most reputable scholars, ie Mary Boyce, agree that the Gathas date to 1200-1700BC. The language they are written in; Avestan, became extinct in 900BC.

and I'm sure that it had its roots in Hinduism. I said that the roots of christianity are in Judaiam, and that Christianity was later influenced by Mithraism and shifted away from its Judaistic roots

Zoroastrian influences began after the exile in 500BC. You will not find an OT book that was written after that date, that does not have major Z influences.

You see it that way because you want to see it that way, but there's much more to it.

If you weren't already hardened and biased from Islam, I guarentee that if you began reading the OT from Genesis 1 onwards, and read a few chapters each day, while also reading about the background and history of the region, you will arrive at the same conclusion as I did. I started reading the entire bible at the beginning of 2006 as I attended bible college for a year. We studied almost one book per week. Before I studied it all indepth, I would not have believed what I now know. And believe me; it took some adjustment.

give me a reference where Jesus, or for that matter any of the gospel writers said that the law is bad and that it stops people from attaining salvation. Even Paul did not say that, but he emphasized faith over the law.

The entire NT is both a logical argument against, plus a replacement of, the Law. Noone can read the NT and miss it!

Until Jesus could achieve his mission, he could not blatantly dump the Law - he had to do it cleverly, through parable and humour (ie the prodigal son and yeast stories, and many more listed in my Jesus Seminar book). He said this;

Mt 13:13 - The reason I speak to them in parables is that "seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.'

Joh 13:7 - "You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand."

This is against the Law (JS scholars have this in "pink"):

Mark 7 15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile." ..... Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile

Joh 5:39 - "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.

Gal 3: For if any kind of rule-keeping had power to create life in us, we would certainly have gotten it by this time. Until the time when we were mature enough to respond freely in faith to the living God, we were carefully surrounded and protected by the Mosaic law. 24 The law was like those Greek tutors, with which you are familiar, who escort children to school and protect them from danger or distraction, making sure the children will really get to the place they set out for. 25 But now you have arrived at your destination: 26 By faith in Christ you are in direct relationship with God.

Furthermore;

The Law Causes Sin

Rom 7So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

Here is a whole book on this subject;
http://www.amazon.com/Enigma-About-Divine-Love-Creation/dp/0595136923/ref=sr_1_1/002-7330625-1596053?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187785644&sr=8-1

Chabchaba

August 22nd 2007, 12:38 PM

His mates killed them, and Muhammad got the booty. :ahem:

Also you didn't defend this;

Book 40, Number 4674:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Qadariyyah are the Magians of this community. If they are ill, do not pay a sick visit to them, and if they die, do not attend their funerals.

Muhammad and Abubakr, his successor, were both long dead by the time this didn't happen (I can't say it happened because it's clearly illogical to kill people and then separate the couples and forbid them from murmuring before they eat), because as many people know Umar was the second successor of Muhammad PBUH.

But you know what, If you believe that one can kill people and then do all these things to them, then I think that Muhammad after his death probably asked his mates to kill the Magis and send him the booty in the other world. :haha:

The second hadith, which is from the same source as the first one, did not say kill the Magis or the Qadariyya. even if the narration is true, it's very different from what you claimed. :tongue:

This is all just circular reasoning, because your "Jesus" is the Quran Jesus and if he doesn't fit the Quran Jesus then it's not Jesus, because it doesnt' fit the Quran Jesus .... and so on ad infinitum.

There is no circular reasoning here. Blaming people for the sins of their fathers does not fit with any Jesus whether Quranic, Gnostic, Judaizing or Mainstream Christian, and was probably added by an anti-semitic gentile Christian. Matthew and Mark did not modify anything in these gospels, it was later Christians as you know.

The real Jesus may have told the Pharisees to abide by the laws including the ones they had neglected, but the later version of Jesus is unlikely to say it.

From the fact that the disciples adhered to the law, I can see clearly what it was that Jesus said and even the disciples did not abandon living by the law. And even Paul did not clearly say that the law should be abolished, but just that it should be adapted for the gentiles. Is there any evidence that Paul did not abide by the law more than the pharisees after his conversion?

On another subject, I am still waiting on proof from you that Christianity is meant to be about a book, not about the Person of Christ.

I never said it's ABOUT a book, I said that a book was revealed to Jesus. we have a record of his life (corrupted but still retaining part of the truth) which records some of his sayings and his deeds which were all BY this book. Unfortunately, due to the loss of this book, we can't know for sure everything about Jesus and his message, and we are therefore having this debate where you have to rely on zoroastrian scriptures to support your view. :lol:

I am not concerned with what's it's about, in this thread, but that the son goes straight from the pigsty into his "Father's" arms . That, and the yeast story would have been highly offensive and shocking. In fact, I'm surprised that more muslims aren't offended by the "from pigsty to God" issue. :hehe:

The important part of the story is the repentance, not where he came from. If he was in hell having a friendly chat with with Satan over a meal of barbequed pork, and he came back repenting, he would be recieved the same way. That is how we percieve God's mercy and forgiveness and that is why I can't accept the notion that we need a blood atonement to get God to forgive us.

Sin does not die on a cross, it dies in our hearts when we repent and turn back to God and obey his law as a sign of our repentance.

Makes no sense. There are many people who speak out against Islam, but they don't seek to "replace" it with anything. If I throw out my rubbish, I don't look for something else to go in my rubbish bin to replace it. :uhoh:

You still haven't proven any relationship between the tree and the law. And, logically, the person would not bother to cut it if he didn't want to replace it, after all it feeds on sunshine and doesn't cost him anything. On the other hand you would throw out your rubbish because you might need the space for other rubbish which you will produce later :lol:

You forgot the most important part of the Haoma ceremony, and that was the Haoma itself. This was an intoxicant like wine, and it was believed to carry the "spirit" of Zarathustra. It was blessed in silver cups with a sacred prayer, and all would drink from it. It is connected to the Amesha Spenta "Ameratat" which means Immortality (Ameratat (Avestan) is "A" = not, like "Im" and meratat = mortality = Immortality) .... as in "Everlasting Life".

It's not like wine, it's a solution of a narcotic plant mixed with milk, pomegranate twigs and consecrated water. It is used immediately and there is no fermenting involved. It does not represent the spirit or the flesh, but represents the holy elements.

The most reputable scholars, ie Mary Boyce, says:

It seems very possible that Zoroaster replaced with this rite an old one, like that maintained by the Brahmans, in which priests imbibed the parahaoma, sharing it with the gods; and that he did this because he regarded haoma as potentially dangerous in its potency to people (cf. his probable denunciation of it, as mada-, in Y. 48.10). An extract from it was drunk by warriors to stimulate their battle lust, and (on Vedic evidence) it was prominent in the cult of warlike Indra, to Zoroaster a daêva (see DAIVA, DEÚW). If then he restricted its use in his own act of worship to yielding a libation to the Waters, it must be supposed that, as his religion spread, priestly converts in ever increasing numbers were reluctant to abandon the old rite, believed to give the celebrant an increase in awareness and power, and so this came to be reinstated as a preliminary to the one he had established
link (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/haoma_ritual.htm)
So your most reputable scholar describes a rite which has nothing whatsoever to do with the eucharist, except, perhaps, the similarity between the effect alcohol and a narcotic plant :haha:

The whole point of the ritual in Z is an offering to the elements, water and fire to sustain them against evil influences, and not to give the people eternal life.

The entire NT is both a logical argument against, plus a replacement of, the Law. Noone can read the NT and miss it!

I'm still waiting for SOLID PROOF. Not your opinions; not scholar's interpretation; not zoroastrian concepts, but SOLID PROOF.

Okay, you can't give any evidence so far that any of the disciples said in clear and unambiguous terms that the law has to be abandoned, so just forget it and let's do something else.

I know that some christians believe that they should live by the law. Give me some empirical evidence that these people are morally and spiritually inferior to the Christians who don't abide by the law, and I'll consider the matter settled and I'll concede my error :smile:

:popcorn:

Narnian

August 22nd 2007, 10:25 PM

Muhammad and Abubakr, his successor, were both long dead by the time this didn't happen

OK, thanks. Funny that a muslim friend of mine, who is also a scholar, did not say this when I showed him the Hadith. He just said; "We are not told why they were killed" and then he tried to divert the topic, as muslims usually do.

Anyway, you did not comment on Mr PBUH's ruling that you are not allowed to visit Magians even if they are sick or dying. Please explain this "noble" teaching in the light of Mr PBUH being the "exempler" for humanity :ahem:

There is no circular reasoning here. Blaming people for the sins of their fathers does not fit with any Jesus whether Quranic, Gnostic, Judaizing or Mainstream Christian, and was probably added by an anti-semitic gentile Christian.

Where do you find blaming people for the sins of their fathers in the NT?

Matthew and Mark did not modify anything in these gospels, it was later Christians as you know.

It is fairly well researched which passages were later additions, and without those passages Jesus does not brush up to match the Quran Jesus. If you are looking for the original words of Jesus, perhaps you need to read the reconstructed Gospel of Q - Q1 being the earliest and probably the closest you will get to Jesus' true sayings .... Q2 added later, and Q3 later still. It is dated to as early as 40AD.
Read it here; http://www.cygnus-study.com/pageq.html
Information here; http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

In there you will not find a Quran Jesus, but more of a Dharmaparda Jesus.

The real Jesus may have told the Pharisees to abide by the laws including the ones they had neglected, but the later version of Jesus is unlikely to say it.

Don't you think it's better to be open to what scholars say? It is obvious that tithing is important to the church, and so having Jesus say "don't neglect the (tithing)" is good for church finances. Those last words in that verse also disrupt the flow. If you read The Documentary Hypothesis, you will soon get used to seeing what redactions look like. I have already seen a lot in the Quran. It is obvious that someone, with a bit more 'heat', has gone over the Quran and softened it.

From the fact that the disciples adhered to the law, I can see clearly what it was that Jesus said and even the disciples did not abandon living by the law.

I have already given you plenty of examples of Jesus breaking Mosaic Law. From blaspheming it, ie by associating pigs with God, yeast with the KOG, saying that nothing that goes in you defiles you (he did not say "except pork"), not washing, hanging out with non-relative women, stopping the stoning of the adulterous woman, hanging out with "Najis" people, touching the dead, not following the Sabbath rules, not fasting, and many more. He also drinks wine and loves to party.

Why do you think the Sadducees and Pharisees continually tried to trap him, and get him to blaspheme the Law, so they could get rid of him?

And even Paul did not clearly say that the law should be abolished, but just that it should be adapted for the gentiles. Is there any evidence that Paul did not abide by the law more than the pharisees after his conversion?

This is a logical fallacy; proof by lack of evidence. If you take the time to read the NT, it is all about a deconstruction of the Law. You obviously can't see the wood for the trees.

I never said it's ABOUT a book, I said that a book was revealed to Jesus.

You keep avoiding this one. Allah is clear when he says it is written in a book, so we know the book is a hardcopy book. Plus Allah tells Muhammad to consult it if he is confused, suggesting that by reading it he will get clear. So, if this book was destroyed in the 1st or 2nd century, Muhammad obviously had the Injeel we know today. So why did Allah send him to a "corrupt" book" if he was already confused?

The important part of the story is the repentance, not where he came from.

I know what it's about, but it's the motif in the story that I am drawing attentinon to. To the Jews at that time -and to muslims today - it is offensive to imagine a man walking out of a pigsty into the arms of God. Why did Jesus choose pigs? Why not goats or sheep or chickens? The "pigs" was not an accident - they were carefully chosen. It shows that Jesus had a sense of humour :lol:

Can't accept that? I don't expect you to.

So your most reputable scholar describes a rite which has nothing whatsoever to do with the eucharist, except, perhaps, the similarity between the effect alcohol and a narcotic plant :haha:

Doesn't prove anything. There is no evidence that Haoma was available in Palistine at that time, since it grows in the northern countries, but wine was in abudundance, and used as a substitute. The baptist churhes offer "fruit juice" instead of wine. The Greek word "Soma" means both 'flesh' and 'Haoma'.

The whole point of the ritual in Z is an offering to the elements, water and fire to sustain them against evil influences, and not to give the people eternal life.

Oh? So why is the element "Hoama" associated with the Amesha Spenta "Ameratat" (Immortality)?

I'm still waiting for SOLID PROOF. Not your opinions; not scholar's interpretation; not zoroastrian concepts, but SOLID PROOF.

So you want me to get in a time machine and go back in time? That's the only SOLID proof you will ever get. :lol:

Okay, you can't give any evidence so far that any of the disciples said in clear and unambiguous terms that the law has to be abandoned, so just forget it and let's do something else.

What's the point - you are already biased by Islam. Even if I show you, you will either say; "that was a fraudulant verse" or "he doesn't mean that". :ahem:

This one is pretty clear:

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed"

In context:

Luke 16"You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others (ie by following externals, like the Law); but God knows your hearts (you can't fool God); for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God. 16 "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came (then they stopped being in effect); since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed (Christ and the gospel is the replacement), and everyone tries to enter it by force ((?)people are keen). 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped. (note the "but" in this sentence; it is easier for impossible things to happen, than for the law to drop, as people are clinging onto it and won't let go) 18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Jesus immediately afterwards, refutes one of the Laws)

I know that some christians believe that they should live by the law. Give me some empirical evidence that these people are morally and spiritually inferior to the Christians who don't abide by the law, and I'll consider the matter settled and I'll concede my error :smile:

As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, then noone is stopping them following Jewish Laws. Some christians use buddhist meditation. But this will not have any impact on God's love, nor will the Jewish law followers impress God. It will just amuse them and give them something to think about and bond over, but ultimately it is a distraction.

Chabchaba

August 23rd 2007, 07:42 AM

OK, thanks. Funny that a muslim friend of mine, who is also a scholar, did not say this when I showed him the Hadith. He just said; "We are not told why they were killed" and then he tried to divert the topic, as muslims usually do.

Yes,it's all part of the big disinformation conspiracy.:lol:

Anyway, you did not comment on Mr PBUH's ruling that you are not allowed to visit Magians even if they are sick or dying. Please explain this "noble" teaching in the light of Mr PBUH being the "exempler" for humanity :ahem:

Come on.. you know that the muslims killed them and split up the booty already. dead people aren't usually grateful when you visit them in their sick beds, or in their death-again-beds. :rofl:

Where do you find blaming people for the sins of their fathers in the NT?

Excuse me!!! I'm not your sunday school teacher. Stop reading these zoroastrian texts and start reading some NT for yourself. :lol: ok I'll be your teacher just this one time.. it's when he (allegedly) says:

31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, [6] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

This is why I don't believe he said this. I don't care what scholars say, I believe this to be an addition by the early antisemitic gentile church which held the jews as a group responsible for a lot of bad things. Now you can see that it wasn't circular reasoning, this is something that Jesus wouldn't say.

Don't you think it's better to be open to what scholars say? It is obvious that tithing is important to the church, and so having Jesus say "don't neglect the (tithing)" is good for church finances. Those last words in that verse also disrupt the flow. If you read The Documentary Hypothesis, you will soon get used to seeing what redactions look like. I have already seen a lot in the Quran. It is obvious that someone, with a bit more 'heat', has gone over the Quran and softened it.

More opinions and scholars' interpretations. God didn't need to send Jesus, you and these scholars are apparently more than enough. :lol:

I have already given you plenty of examples of Jesus breaking Mosaic Law. From blaspheming it, ie by associating pigs with God, yeast with the KOG, saying that nothing that goes in you defiles you (he did not say "except pork"), not washing, hanging out with non-relative women, stopping the stoning of the adulterous woman, hanging out with "Najis" people, touching the dead, not following the Sabbath rules, not fasting, and many more. He also drinks wine and loves to party.

All of this fits in perfectly with my Jesus. we just interpret all of this differently.

Why do you think the Sadducees and Pharisees continually tried to trap him, and get him to blaspheme the Law, so they could get rid of him?

Because they didn't have tv and their only available form of entertainment was stoning people and watching crucifictions? :lol:

This is a logical fallacy; proof by lack of evidence. If you take the time to read the NT, it is all about a deconstruction of the Law. You obviously can't see the wood for the trees.

Yes but it's not my fault. why are these trees hiding the wood anyway? :rofl:

You keep avoiding this one. Allah is clear when he says it is written in a book, so we know the book is a hardcopy book. Plus Allah tells Muhammad to consult it if he is confused, suggesting that by reading it he will get clear. So, if this book was destroyed in the 1st or 2nd century, Muhammad obviously had the Injeel we know today. So why did Allah send him to a "corrupt" book" if he was already confused?

Come on.. I already explained this many times. do you know which books they had in arabia? maybe God thought that the sects which were in arabia at the time had a less corrupted book and maybe God meant him to read the bible and see that it was so confusing that christians need to consult zoroastrian texts to get something out of it and then he would realise why God wanted to send another book. :smile:

I know what it's about, but it's the motif in the story that I am drawing attentinon to. To the Jews at that time -and to muslims today - it is offensive to imagine a man walking out of a pigsty into the arms of God. Why did Jesus choose pigs? Why not goats or sheep or chickens? The "pigs" was not an accident - they were carefully chosen. It shows that Jesus had a sense of humour :lol:

Can't accept that? I don't expect you to.

The whole point is that it was a pigsty, to show how far the boy had strayed and then he was forgiven when he repented. goats and sheep and chicken wouldn't convey that concept.

Can't accept that? I don't expect you to accept that because you want everything to be about Jesus vs. the law.

Doesn't prove anything. There is no evidence that Haoma was available in Palistine at that time, since it grows in the northern countries, but wine was in abudundance, and used as a substitute. The baptist churhes offer "fruit juice" instead of wine. The Greek word "Soma" means both 'flesh' and 'Haoma'.

They had a lot of narcotic plants there which would have been more appropriate to use. The levant has always been a major exporter for narcotics.

Oh? So why is the element "Hoama" associated with the Amesha Spenta "Ameratat" (Immortality)?

Not the point. The point is that the ritual was to sustain the holy elements: water and fire, according the most notable scholars i.e. Mary Boyce :lol:

So you want me to get in a time machine and go back in time? That's the only SOLID proof you will ever get. :lol:

Ok we can wait until someone invents a time machine, because there is no way you'll convince me with all your guesswork (brilliant as it is) and the interpretations of scholars who are not investigating on historical basis, but on the basis of their theological framework.

On that day, we can use the time machine and settle a lot of issues about what Jesus really meant, and about whether a book was revealed to him or not.

Meanwhile we can kill time by trying to provide some conclusive evidence. :smile:

What's the point - you are already biased by Islam. Even if I show you, you will either say; "that was a fraudulant verse" or "he doesn't mean that". :ahem:

The same goes for you. You're too infuenced by zoroastrianism to believe that Jesus had a Jewish background. You'll say that anything which validates the law was added by the church and that it's not what he meant, and you'll give me an argument based on your understanding of the NT which is basically nothing more than biased opinion.

This one is pretty clear:

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed"

In context:

Luke 16"You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others (ie by following externals, like the Law); but God knows your hearts (you can't fool God); for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God. 16 "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came (then they stopped being in effect); since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed (Christ and the gospel is the replacement), and everyone tries to enter it by force ((?)people are keen). 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped. (note the "but" in this sentence; it is easier for impossible things to happen, than for the law to drop, as people are clinging onto it and won't let go) 18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Jesus immediately afterwards, refutes one of the Laws)

Now this blows a big hole in your whole theory. was the law replaced by the sacrifice or by the message of John? and why does this refer to the Christ AND the gospel? I thought they were the same thing?????

This proves that there was Christ AND a gospel which was revealed to him and this Gospel was a replacement for the law (Torah). I see this as suppportive to my case. please search more and you may find something which actually supports your case, and not mine :lol:

As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, then noone is stopping them following Jewish Laws. Some christians use buddhist meditation. But this will not have any impact on God's love, nor will the Jewish law followers impress God. It will just amuse them and give them something to think about and bond over, but ultimately it is a distraction.

That is nothing more than your opinion. where is the empirical evidence that it's a distraction?

:popcorn:

Narnian

August 23rd 2007, 09:56 PM

Come on.. you know that the muslims killed them and split up the booty already. dead people aren't usually grateful when you visit them in their sick beds, or in their death-again-beds.

Trying everything to not answer my question, hey? It's no secret - Muhammad was NO exempler for humanity. I think deep down you know this too. :ahem:

31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You .

I don't read "sins of the fathers" in that. It's the hyperbolic and passionate monologue against legalism. Not to be taken literally :ahem:

Perhaps you meant "original sin"? As an Arminian-universalist, I believe in Prevenient Grace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace

Now you can see that it wasn't circular reasoning, this is something that Jesus wouldn't say.

Didn't say what? Matt 23:31 or Matt 23:23?

The JS scholars have both passages in black.

More opinions and scholars' interpretations. God didn't need to send Jesus, you and these scholars are apparently more than enough. :lol:

The scriptures are but a mere "finger pointing to the moon" - they are not the end point, unlike Islam.

Joh 5:39 - "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life

Get this clear - the bible is not like the Quran. It is not a bunch of rules to be followed, and never was. Have a listen to this sermon; http://www.mounties.org.au/ click on; 19 August AM (8MB)

Come on.. I already explained this many times. do you know which books they had in arabia? maybe God thought that the sects which were in arabia at the time had a less corrupted book and maybe God meant him to read the bible and see that it was so confusing that christians need to consult zoroastrian texts to get something out of it and then he would realise why God wanted to send another book.

"Less corrupted" is still corrupted. Allah sent Muhammad to a 'corrupted" book, when confused. If Allah is Omniscient and Omnipotent, as he says he is, none of this makes sense.

DId you check out the gospel of Q? You did not comment on it. They are considered the oldest recordings of Jesus' sayings, yet none of them live up to the Quran Jesus.

Not the point. The point is that the ritual was to sustain the holy elements: water and fire, according the most notable scholars i.e. Mary Boyce

Don't know where you are getting your info from. In my book "Zoroastrianism" by Peter Clark, it says this;

"Since Ameretat is the entity personifying immortality, it is appropriate that she is represeneted in the Yasna ceremony by the sacremental Haoma preparation. It will be remembered that the epithet for Hoama is duraosha - the "bestower of immortality", so the yasna ceremony confirms this association." (p39)

And in the glossary;

"Haoma: The sacred plant (probably ephedra) whose juice is used in the Yasna and other ceremonies; also called hom; the deity presiding over this plant who will assist Ahura Mazda at the apocalyptic liturgy; the "averter of death"" (p184)

Ok we can wait until someone invents a time machine, because there is no way you'll convince me with all your guesswork (brilliant as it is) and the interpretations of scholars who are not investigating on historical basis, but on the basis of their theological framework.

We don't need one - the Living Christ is herenow.

You'll say that anything which validates the law was added by the church and that it's not what he meant, and you'll give me an argument based on your understanding of the NT which is basically nothing more than biased opinion.

I've already demonstrated how I arrive at my conclusions, and it's not "personal preference" but the majority opinions of the best scholars. I have sent you the Q gospel, but you have not commented on it. I have sent you dozens of quotes from Isaiah and other post-exilic prophets that are almost identical to the NT. I have sent you other links to books and websites. Yet you continue to say it is my opinion.

Meanwhile, all I've seen you rely on is the Quran; which is a plagiarism and a forgery. :ahem:
http://oslab.snu.ac.kr/os/evolution/%BF%AA%BB%E7/Why%20I%20am%20not%20a%20Muslim.htm
Every day the internet is slowly debunking and refuting Islam.

Wafa Sultan: I was advised by so many friends to polish my message and to soften my way of saying it. I tried, but I failed. I see the truth as naked, and I feel it more powerful to stay naked. I cannot just in order to make it look better, put a nicer dress on it. So I'm going to say it directly, the way I used to do it. I don't believe Islam can be reformed, I really don't.

Now this blows a big hole in your whole theory. was the law replaced by the sacrifice or by the message of John? and why does this refer to the Christ AND the gospel? I thought they were the same thing?????

You are taking it all too literally. The Law was never God's plan for humanity. The writers of the Torah were merely attempting to impose priestly power over Israel. In fact, most sources now believe that P and D are post exilic. http://www.cresourcei.org/jedp.html

Read "Who Wrote The Bible" by Friedman. I also have his colour-coded Torah, which makes very interesting reading. If you then read The Bible Unearthed - a very recent publication by 2 Jewish scholars and archeolgists ......... then Islam will be history for you.

This proves that there was Christ AND a gospel which was revealed to him and this Gospel was a replacement for the law (Torah). I see this as suppportive to my case. please search more and you may find something which actually supports your case, and not mine :lol:

Does it say the "good news" is a book? Does it say it was "revealed" to Jesus? No.

John the Baptist was the way-preparer, the forerunner of the King, that the kingdom was at hand, that the old dispensation was about to close.

It is again more proof that the Covenant of Grace abrogated the Law.

Ephesians 2:15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
Colossians 2:14 erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of "a new covenant," he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.

That is nothing more than your opinion. where is the empirical evidence that it's a distraction?

Empiricle evidence? Just take a look at the Islamic world and there's your evidence! All these "law followers" are all trying to get to Christian countries, which have abolished the Law.

World's quality of life; http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_36587.html
300 million muslims believe it's good to kill innocents; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_07pewglobal.pdf

Interesting that Paul prophesised something like this. Warning; I showed my muslim friend these verses and it infuriated him so much that he didn't speak to me for a week;

Galatians 4
1 My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves (in Islam you are slaves), though they are the owners of all the property; 2 but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God. 8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods........ 21 Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23 One, the child of the slave (Ishmael), was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise (Isaac). 24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children 26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother.... 28 Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29 But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also 30 But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave and her child for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman." 31 So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman

Muslims are slaves to a book, to legalism and a nasty and cruel "prophet". [/B] Joh 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. Joh 5:40 [B]Yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Chabchaba

August 25th 2007, 05:47 AM

Trying everything to not answer my question, hey? It's no secret - Muhammad was NO exempler for humanity. I think deep down you know this too. :ahem:

OMG!! :argh: you still insist on making this debate about what you think.. Let me make this clear: Im not interested in what you think. I want you to give me proof that the law is not useful, which is something you haven't been able to do so far.

I don't read "sins of the fathers" in that. It's the hyperbolic and passionate monologue against legalism. Not to be taken literally :ahem:

Perhaps you meant "original sin"? As an Arminian-universalist, I believe in Prevenient Grace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace

No.what I meant is blaming the living for the sins of the dead of which these verses are a clear example. the original sin also falls in the same category but it isn't what I'm talking about now.

Didn't say what? Matt 23:31 or Matt 23:23?

The JS scholars have both passages in black.

I meant 23:31. I don't care what colour the scholars put them in, I just know that Jesus didn't say this. The other one may have been misused by the church but that does not mean that Jesus didn't say it.

The scriptures are but a mere "finger pointing to the moon" - they are not the end point, unlike Islam.

Joh 5:39 - "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life

Get this clear - the bible is not like the Quran. It is not a bunch of rules to be followed, and never was. Have a listen to this sermon; http://www.mounties.org.au/ click on; 19 August AM (8MB)

These verses are a reference to the OT which testified on behalf of Jesus. In spite of that some people refused to believe in him as the Messiah. This does not support your point at all but it just means that some people saw the Messiah whom they were waiting for and they missed him. It does not support your point in any way.

"Less corrupted" is still corrupted. Allah sent Muhammad to a 'corrupted" book, when confused. If Allah is Omniscient and Omnipotent, as he says he is, none of this makes sense.

DId you check out the gospel of Q? You did not comment on it. They are considered the oldest recordings of Jesus' sayings, yet none of them live up to the Quran Jesus.

It makes perfect sense. If you are in doubt about God sending a messenger with a book, check the book which was sent before and see how confusing it is and how corrupted it become and you'll realize why. :teeth:

Who wrote the gospel of Q? as far as I know, it is the sum of the verses which are repeated in the synoptic gospels, because someone guessed that they were all copied from a single source and that therefore the verses which are identical in all of them are more authentic than the ones which are not the same. There is no proof that the source was authentic, and we don't know when or by whom it was written, so basically it does not prove anything. besides it is just a theory and there is no real proof that this source existed.

Don't know where you are getting your info from. In my book "Zoroastrianism" by Peter Clark, it says this;

"Since Ameretat is the entity personifying immortality, it is appropriate that she is represeneted in the Yasna ceremony by the sacremental Haoma preparation. It will be remembered that the epithet for Hoama is duraosha - the "bestower of immortality", so the yasna ceremony confirms this association." (p39)

And in the glossary;

"Haoma: The sacred plant (probably ephedra) whose juice is used in the Yasna and other ceremonies; also called hom; the deity presiding over this plant who will assist Ahura Mazda at the apocalyptic liturgy; the "averter of death"" (p184)

I get my information from the most notable scholars, i.e. Mary Boyce, :haha: and I put the link. What you have said does not refute my point. The objective of the ritual is to give life, but not to the person who partakes in it. It is to give life and sustenance to the holy elements. This makes it 180 degrees different from the Christian ritual.

We don't need one - the Living Christ is herenow.

Apparently you need one: after that you won’t need scholars to colour code the bible and you would see for yourself what haoma was all about without relying on the most notable scholars, ie Mary Boyce and Peter Clark. You won’t need the gospels and the Zoroastrian scriptures to tell you about Jesus, but you can get your information from the real source and you would be able to say: Jesus says that the law is abolished instead of saying scholars believe and I guess.

I've already demonstrated how I arrive at my conclusions, and it's not "personal preference" but the majority opinions of the best scholars. I have sent you the Q gospel, but you have not commented on it. I have sent you dozens of quotes from Isaiah and other post-exilic prophets that are almost identical to the NT. I have sent you other links to books and websites. Yet you continue to say it is my opinion.

Meanwhile, all I've seen you rely on is the Quran; which is a plagiarism and a forgery. :ahem:
http://oslab.snu.ac.kr/os/evolution/%BF%AA%BB%E7/Why%20I%20am%20not%20a%20Muslim.htm
Every day the internet is slowly debunking and refuting Islam.

Wafa Sultan: I was advised by so many friends to polish my message and to soften my way of saying it. I tried, but I failed. I see the truth as naked, and I feel it more powerful to stay naked. I cannot just in order to make it look better, put a nicer dress on it. So I'm going to say it directly, the way I used to do it. I don't believe Islam can be reformed, I really don't.

It would be stupid if I try to argue with a christian based on the quran, and since I am not stupid, all my arguments are based on the christian scriptures.It is you who keeps bringing up islamic scriptures trying to make this thread about Islam islam vs. narnian christianity.:smile:

This thread is not about islam, but about the law in general.

You are taking it all too literally. The Law was never God's plan for humanity. The writers of the Torah were merely attempting to impose priestly power over Israel. In fact, most sources now believe that P and D are post exilic. http://www.cresourcei.org/jedp.html

Read "Who Wrote The Bible" by Friedman. I also have his colour-coded Torah, which makes very interesting reading. If you then read The Bible Unearthed - a very recent publication by 2 Jewish scholars and archeolgists ......... then Islam will be history for you.

More baseless opinions.:haha:

Does it say the "good news" is a book? Does it say it was "revealed" to Jesus? No.

John the Baptist was the way-preparer, the forerunner of the King, that the kingdom was at hand, that the old dispensation was about to close.

It is again more proof that the Covenant of Grace abrogated the Law.

Ephesians 2:15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
Colossians 2:14 erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross.
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of "a new covenant," he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.

I thought you said that the gospel is Jesus :lol:. Here the verse refers the gospel AND Jesus. So what is the gospel if it is not Jesus himself? It is not the sacrifice, of course, because at the time these verses were said, there was no sacrifice, so I can only logically assume it is a book.

Empiricle evidence? Just take a look at the Islamic world and there's your evidence! All these "law followers" are all trying to get to Christian countries, which have abolished the Law.

There are also Christians from poor Christian countries who are trying to make it to richer Christian countries and highly qualified Christians from rich western countries who go to Islamic countries for better career opportunities. How do you explain that? this argument which you have made shows clearly how you reach your conclusions. (Hint: it's not through logic)

I knew you'd say this by the way, that is why I specifically said: I know that some Christians believe that they should live by the law. Give me some empirical evidence that these people are morally and spiritually inferior to the Christians who don't abide by the law, and I'll consider the matter settled and I'll concede my error

Narnian

August 25th 2007, 08:50 AM

OMG!! you still insist on making this debate about what you think.. Let me make this clear: Im not interested in what you think.

OK, so I take it that you have no answer.

I want you to give me proof that the law is not useful, which is something you haven't been able to do so far.

I have nothing against laws and rules. But it's when it gets called "divine" rules that it becomes a problem. I've already explained this and why it's a problem.

Have a read of this essay:
Morality vs. Ethics By Ali Sina
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/morality.htm

I meant 23:31. I don't care what colour the scholars put them in, I just know that Jesus didn't say this. The other one may have been misused by the church but that does not mean that Jesus didn't say it.

Well I want to know which sources you use to back up your belief. I have already quoted many sources. So far, your conclusions are only based upon your opinions. I look forward to seeing your scholarly evidence.

These verses are a reference to the OT which testified on behalf of Jesus. In spite of that some people refused to believe in him as the Messiah. This does not support your point at all but it just means that some people saw the Messiah whom they were waiting for and they missed him. It does not support your point in any way.

It doesn't say anything about "believing he was the Messiah". It clearly says: "to me" so that you will have LIFE ... which is translated as Zoe in Greek, and which means spiritual life in the herenow .... something which Islam does not have.

Jesus has come to give the good news that both Zoe and Eternity are available to all humankind. And, that is basic, mainstream christianity.

Who wrote the gospel of Q? as far as I know, it is the sum of the verses which are repeated in the synoptic gospels, because someone guessed that they were all copied from a single source and that therefore the verses which are identical in all of them are more authentic than the ones which are not the same. There is no proof that the source was authentic, and we don't know when or by whom it was written, so basically it does not prove anything. besides it is just a theory and there is no real proof that this source existed.

It is the closest to the original teachings of Jesus, through painstaking scholarly research over many decades. If you don't agree, then show me evidence of an even closer depiction of the original sayings of Jesus.

I get my information from the most notable scholars, i.e. Mary Boyce, :haha: and I put the link. What you have said does not refute my point. The objective of the ritual is to give life, but not to the person who partakes in it. It is to give life and sustenance to the holy elements. This makes it 180 degrees different from the Christian ritual.

http://books.google.com/books?id=g2W0keFro08C&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=%22mary+boyce%22+haoma+immortality+zoroastrianism&source=web&ots=Nu0BYc9Pmr&sig=k2I4Nb_cPl8eR729GHK45SeUohs#PPA74,M1

Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices By Mary Boyce

Ahriman .... attempts to destory all the immortality-conferring haoma in the owrld, since immortality itself can only be conferred in the physical realm.

and

Ahura Mazda and the 6 Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a last, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death will be no more), and making a preparation of the "white haoma", which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who partake of it.

you would see for yourself what haoma was all about without relying on the most notable scholars, ie Mary Boyce and Peter Clark.

:duh: this debate is turning nutty :popcorn:

You won’t need the gospels and the Zoroastrian scriptures to tell you about Jesus, but you can get your information from the real source and you would be able to say: Jesus says that the law is abolished instead of saying scholars believe and I guess.

So you're saying: "use my opinion only" ie not what research, and years of painstaking research, say? :noid:

It would be stupid if I try to argue with a christian based on the quran, and since I am not stupid, all my arguments are based on the christian scriptures.It is you who keeps bringing up islamic scriptures trying to make this thread about Islam islam vs. narnian christianity.

But so far I have only seen you use circular reasoning and your "preferences". I have not seen you back up your arguments about what Jesus said with anything else but circularity.

This thread is not about islam, but about the law in general.

Islam is an excellent example of a "legalist" religion; that's why it's such an important juxtaposition with Christianity. Islam is anachronistic, pre-exilic Judaism with a few skewed Christian verses thrown in to impress people.

Islam is what Christianity was refuting in the first century.

In fact, Isaiah was refuting it back in 400BC with Isaiah 1:14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates and other verses already shown.

More baseless opinions.

Oh, so those two books who are written by top Hebrew scholars Drs Silberman and Finkelstein, and Dr Freidman are just "baseless opinions"? :duh: Please explain :popcorn:

this argument which you have made shows clearly how you reach your conclusions. (Hint: it's not through logic)

No, it was better than "logic" - it was facts and figures. :smug:

Give me some empirical evidence that these people are morally and spiritually inferior

The most immoral act is violence towards innocent civilians. If you read that report I sent you, it says that 20-30% of muslims, the world over, believe in killing innocent civilians. In Palistine that statistic goes up to 70%. Therefore, we have at least 300 million muslims in the world who think it is "good" to kill your innocent unsuspecting children or parents or grandparents. Therefore 300 million muslims are highly immoral, for a start. :brood:

Then you have legal pedophilia in some islamic countries, ie Iran, where the age of consent is 9. Domestic violence is legal and encouraged in the Quran if the wife doesn't do as the husband wants. :hmph:

Finally, the Hero-Archtype of the muslim world was an immoral man by today's standards - he committed almost every immoral act possible. That the 7th century bedouins thought he was a prophet because he told them, just shows how simple and uncivilised these people were. But the problem is that he is still the hero-archetype today, and if Jung is anything to go by, which i think he is, then the muslim collective unconscious is based on immorality. :glare:

Chabchaba

August 25th 2007, 12:46 PM

OK, so I take it that you have no answer.

That was just a red herring which had nothing to do with the thread. Your initial claim was that Muhammad killed the Magians. Let's keep to the topic and if you want to start a new thread, you can start one about why Muslims don't visit Magians on their sick beds and their death-again beds after killing them, and about the morality of killing people and then imposing certain rules about incestous marriages and table manners on them when they are dead. :rofl::lol:

I have nothing against laws and rules. But it's when it gets called "divine" rules that it becomes a problem. I've already explained this and why it's a problem.

YOU have a problem with divine laws. a lot of people don't. You and they are both not relevant because this is not a poll about what people have a problem with and what they don't have a problem with. :wink:

Well I want to know which sources you use to back up your belief. I have already quoted many sources. So far, your conclusions are only based upon your opinions. I look forward to seeing your scholarly evidence.

Its not just opinions, it is backed by the christian scriptures. It is you who keeps quoting from scholars who agree with you and turning a blind eye to the others and interpreting the scriptures as you want and ignoring the other possibilities.

It doesn't say anything about "believing he was the Messiah". It clearly says: "to me" so that you will have LIFE ... which is translated as Zoe in Greek, and which means spiritual life in the herenow .... something which Islam does not have.

People can have spiritual life AND the law. Do you have proof that they are incompatible?

It is the closest to the original teachings of Jesus, through painstaking scholarly research over many decades. If you don't agree, then show me evidence of an even closer depiction of the original sayings of Jesus.

Did this scholarly research take the apocryphal writings into consideration? if not then their effort was self-contradictory. They admit that the gospels were not inspired but copied from other sources, but at the same time, they ignore the other equally uninspired books which are lying around all over the place.

I can't prove which stories are true and which aren't unless I have criteria for discerning truth from falsehood. Christian scholars have a criterion which is whether the quotes agree with a certain set of beliefs. unless they can somehow prove that Jesus really preached those beliefs (e.g. with a time machine), then there is no way to find out if their conclusions are correct. even the earliest writings wouldn't prove a thing because we know through other early writings that there were disagreements right from the start.

Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices By Mary Boyce

Ahriman .... attempts to destory all the immortality-conferring haoma in the owrld, since immortality itself can only be conferred in the physical realm.

and

Ahura Mazda and the 6 Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a last, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death will be no more), and making a preparation of the "white haoma", which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who partake of it.

There are a lot of similarities with the christian beliefs but you should note that:

This final sacrifice is AFTER the defeat of Ahriman. The Haoma is also AFTER, but the eucharist is BEFORE the sacrifice and BEFORE the defeat of evil.
The white haoma is AFTER resurrection but the eucharist is BEFORE.

in the gospels Jesus is reported as saying:

Take this, all of you, and eat it:
this is my body which will be given up for you.
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.

Now I don't see any mention of the zoroastrian concepts here. Christians today beleive that they will gain eternal life in Jesus when they participate in this rite, which is similar to zoroastrian and mithraic beliefs about their version of the eucharist. The fact that this is not evident in the Words of Institution which were about remembering, and not about immortality strongly suggests that the beliefs were a later addition, probably from the influence of the Mithraic cult which was very widespread at the time in the Roman empire.

This is also suggested by the discrepancies in chronological order between the christian version and the Z version which probably indicates an attempt from Constantine to reinterpret the christian rite in mithraic terms to help bridge the gap between the two main religions in his empire.

Now back to the thread topic. Did Zoroastrianism promote laws and formal worship? It probably did not promote animal sacrifices (however, there is no conclusive evidence) but it appears to be obsessed with rituals regarding purity and prayer.

Zoroastrians must pray five times every 24 hours - sunrise, noon, sunset, midnight and dawn. They pray standing while untying and tying a sacred cord tied around their waist. There are seven communal festivals. The most important is No Ruz or Navroz - the Parsi New Year new day observed at the spring of Equinox. People took special care about the purity of fire, water and earth. They disposed of the dead by exposing the corpses in barren places or on stone towers, called Towers of Silence, where they are eaten by vultures. Zoroastrians practice a number of rites for regaining lost purity. Prayers are regularly preceded by ritual ablutions. The community is divided into lay people and priests. Boys begin to study the sacred text at the age of seven years. Some priests tend the sacred fire kept burning in the temples link (http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/z/zoroastrianism.html)

So you can't use the proof of similarity between Christianity and Zoroastrianism to prove that the law is not binding.

:duh: this debate is turning nutty :popcorn:

You're the one who brought up time machines :lol:

So you're saying: "use my opinion only" ie not what research, and years of painstaking research, say? :noid:

Painstaking research with a predetermined position. you had your opinions and you were looking for validation. You found it by viewing christian texts through a zoroastrian lens, and then looking for validation in the works of scholars who held similar views. Painstaking though it may be, it is not a scientific way to conduct a research.

But so far I have only seen you use circular reasoning and your "preferences". I have not seen you back up your arguments about what Jesus said with anything else but circularity.

Basically all you've been doing is referring to your opinions and the opinions of those who have the same concepts as yours, as proof of your opinions and the opinions of those who have the same concepts as yours. I have shown you that all the scriptural verses which you quote can have an alternative interpretation, and you have been trying to refute by saying "I think so and so" or " the reputable scholars So and so says: bla bla bla".

I'm not sure about this but the last time I checked it was called christianity, not scholarianity or opinionanity :lol:

Islam is an excellent example of a "legalist" religion; that's why it's such an important juxtaposition with Christianity. Islam is anachronistic, pre-exilic Judaism with a few skewed Christian verses thrown in to impress people.

Islam is what Christianity was refuting in the first century.

In fact, Isaiah was refuting it back in 400BC with Isaiah 1:14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates and other verses already shown.

I think you've already used the Isaiah argument from your copy paste file in this thread.:haha: :duh: we already discussed what Isaiah meant and I have shown you that it can be understood in a different way based on the historical context. My explanation also dovetails perfectly with the verse in Matthew in which Jesus tells the pharisees how to be righteous through abiding by the whole law.

Oh, so those two books who are written by top Hebrew scholars Drs Silberman and Finkelstein, and Dr Freidman are just "baseless opinions"? :duh: Please explain :popcorn:

You claimed that I am taking the law too literally and that if I read these books Islam will be history for me. These are both baseless opinions which were not in tghe books written by these two esteemed Hebrew scholars. :duh:

As for the issue of who wrote the bible, I know that parts of it were written by priests trying to wield more power over the people, and therefore not all laws are God given.

However, that is not relevant because we are discussing about whether the law is binding or not. It's a general discussion, and not a discussion about which laws are binding and which are not.

No, it was better than "logic" - it was facts and figures. :smug:

The most immoral act is violence towards innocent civilians. If you read that report I sent you, it says that 20-30% of muslims, the world over, believe in killing innocent civilians. In Palistine that statistic goes up to 70%. Therefore, we have at least 300 million muslims in the world who think it is "good" to kill your innocent unsuspecting children or parents or grandparents. Therefore 300 million muslims are highly immoral, for a start. :brood:

Then you have legal pedophilia in some islamic countries, ie Iran, where the age of consent is 9. Domestic violence is legal and encouraged in the Quran if the wife doesn't do as the husband wants. :hmph:

Finally, the Hero-Archtype of the muslim world was an immoral man by today's standards - he committed almost every immoral act possible. That the 7th century bedouins thought he was a prophet because he told them, just shows how simple and uncivilised these people were. But the problem is that he is still the hero-archetype today, and if Jung is anything to go by, which i think he is, then the muslim collective unconscious is based on immorality. :glare:

I know you are busy but please read my arguments before trying to refute them. What I said is that it's not about Islam vs. Christianity, It's about the law in general.

That is why I asked you more than once to back your arguments about the law being a distraction with some kind of solid evidence. what I clearly and specifically said was:

I know that some Christians believe that they should live by the law. Give me some empirical evidence that these people are morally and spiritually inferior to the Christians who don't abide by the law, and I'll consider the matter settled and I'll concede my error

and it's especially important that you make a comparison between Christians who think the law is binding and other Christians who think it is not, because they both generally believe in the same same scriptures and have the same basic doctrines, and therefore any moral or spiritual inferiority would be attributable to the main thing which is different between them. i.e. the law. This is how a scientific research would be done.

The discussion is not about a comparison between Islam and Christianity, so don't try to turn it into one. Especially when your arguments are as lame as the one you made about Muslims going to Christian countries.:haha: :duh:

Your argument made me think of Joey from friends, I don't know why :wink: :lol:

Narnian

August 25th 2007, 10:07 PM

YOU have a problem with divine laws. a lot of people don't. You and they are both not relevant because this is not a poll about what people have a problem with and what they don't have a problem with.

It is not my personal problem, but a social one. If laws are "divine" then they can't be changed or adapted. When they are secular they can.

Its not just opinions, it is backed by the christian scriptures.

Trying to prove a text from the same text is called circularity. You need to expand out and read other ancient commentaries and history.

People can have spiritual life AND the law. Do you have proof that they are incompatible?

The entire NT is a refutation of the incompatibility of The Law and Zoe.

The church works best as a force of resistance, a counterblanace to consuming power of the state. The cozier it gets with government, the more watered-down its message becomes. The gospel itself changes as it devolves into civil religion. Aristotle's lofty ethics, Alasdair MacIntyre reminds us, had no place fora good man showing love to a bad man - in other words, had no place for a gospel of grace.
In sum, the state must always water down the absoltue quality of Jesus' commands and turn them into a form of external morality - precisely the opposite of the gospel of grace. Jaques Ellul goes so far as to say the New Testament teaches no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian ethic." It commands conversion and then this; "Be perfect ... as your heavenly Father is perfect." Read the Sermon on the Mount and try to imagine any government enacting that set of laws.
A state government can shut down stores and theatres on Sunday, but it cannot compel worship. It can arrest and punish KKK murderers but cannot cure their hatred, much less teach them love. It can pass laws making divorce more difficult but cannot force husband to love their wives and wives their husbands. It can give subsidies to the poor but cannot force the rich to show them compassion and justice. It can ban adultery but not lust, theft but not covetousness, cheating but not pride. It can encourage virtue but not holiness. (Philip Yancey)

The Law Causes Sin
Rom 7So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

Did this scholarly research take the apocryphal writings into consideration?

Everything. Western theological scholarship is scrupulous. I know this from having done part of a university degree in theology.

I can't prove which stories are true and which aren't unless I have criteria for discerning truth from falsehood. Christian scholars have a criterion which is whether the quotes agree with a certain set of beliefs.

If the Gospel of Q or other such research findings had been based on a "certain set of beliefs" then they wouldn't have made it outside of the university they were written in. In case you've been living in a cocoon all your life, christian theological research is swamped by criticism and counter-criticism. If the gospel of Q is studied in universites and used as a source data by researchers the world over, you can pretty much guarentee that it has at least some credibiblility.

This final sacrifice is AFTER the defeat of Ahriman. The Haoma is also AFTER, but the eucharist is BEFORE the sacrifice and BEFORE the defeat of evil.
The white haoma is AFTER resurrection but the eucharist is BEFORE.

We're not talking about the sacrifice; we're talking about the Haoma being associated with Immortality. Are you aware of the medieval christian legend of the Holy Grail and immortality? Same thing.

Now back to the thread topic. Did Zoroastrianism promote laws and formal worship? It probably did not promote animal sacrifices (however, there is no conclusive evidence) but it appears to be obsessed with rituals regarding purity and prayer.

So you can't use the proof of similarity between Christianity and Zoroastrianism to prove that the law is not binding.

And this is what I was trying to say earlier. Jesus came for both Zoroastrians AND Jews. That's why he went out of his way to go against Zoroastrian purity laws, like not going anywhere near a dead person. Zarathustra says NOTHING about purity and laws in his Gathas; the laws were later additions. Jesus was taking Zoroastrianism all the way back to the Gathas, where it was supposed to be.

we already discussed what Isaiah meant and I have shown you that it can be understood in a different way based on the historical context.

All you did was quote it from a faulty and antiquated bible translation.

My explanation also dovetails perfectly with the verse in Matthew in which Jesus tells the pharisees how to be righteous through abiding by the whole law.

Please could you present it again; the Isaiah verse plus the Matthew verse, and show me how you conclude this. Please use the NRSV.

You claimed that I am taking the law too literally and that if I read these books Islam will be history for me. These are both baseless opinions which were not in tghe books written by these two esteemed Hebrew scholars.

The reason I say this is because these scholars/archeologists have recently argued that Abraham was a myth, and Moses probably was as well.

Something further on this (not from these scholars but others). Abraham and the hindu god Brahma have more than just a few similarities. http://www.viewzone.com/abraham2.html

After the Sarasvati River dried up in 2000BC, the vedics migrated westwards as far as Palistine and Eygpt. They brought their god Brahma, with goddess Sarasvati with them. It was an exile for them; they believed they had wronged Sarasvati (just as they believed they had wronged YHWH when they were exiled in 600BC by the Babylonians). But Sarah (Sarasvati) - who is dried up and "barren" - and Abraham (Brahma) produce a son in their old age: Isaac. He produces 2 sons; Jacob and Esau. Esau means "Edom", and he respresents the Edomites, who, in the OT story, must always be in subjugation to the Israelites (a political ploy). And God changes Jacobs name to Israel.

Hence, Israel the nation is formed - out of the exiled Hindu gods; Brahma and Sarasvati.

You can verify any of this.

As for the issue of who wrote the bible, I know that parts of it were written by priests trying to wield more power over the people, and therefore not all laws are God given.

None of it was written by God. It was ALL written for political and social purposes. Have you read about the Code of Hammurabi? This is where the ancients first got the idea of a legal code from;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

The ancients, being a superstitious and simple lot, erroneously concluded that the stone tablets must be divine laws.

However, that is not relevant because we are discussing about whether the law is binding or not. It's a general discussion, and not a discussion about which laws are binding and which are not.

What I have written above furthers my argument that the "law" was never from God. It was man made.

and it's especially important that you make a comparison between Christians who think the law is binding and other Christians who think it is not,

I have never met a single Christian who believes this. Muslims are the best example as law followers today. That's why they make such an excellent study and comparison. And, no, I'm not going to stop critiquing about Islam. :popcorn:

Your argument made me think of Joey from friends, I don't know why

I don't watch TV - I'm deaf. :blush:

Chabchaba

August 26th 2007, 10:28 AM

It is not my personal problem, but a social one. If laws are "divine" then they can't be changed or adapted. When they are secular they can.

religious laws can also be changed within certain extents. Remember that they are designed for a virtually non-existent law enforcement system, so they have to be adapted to be applicable today. besides there is a huge range of different interpretation, which makes them flexible to some extent. And as many people don't have a problem with divine laws, it's still considered your personal problem even though you call it a social problem.

Trying to prove a text from the same text is called circularity. You need to expand out and read other ancient commentaries and history.

I'm not trying to prove a text, I'm trying to prove a point BY the text.

The entire NT is a refutation of the incompatibility of The Law and Zoe.

Can you explain your argument in biblical terms? The problem with you is that you superimpose concepts on the bible which were not existent there originally thereby turning christianity into something very complicated.

The church works best as a force of resistance, a counterblanace to consuming power of the state. The cozier it gets with government, the more watered-down its message becomes. The gospel itself changes as it devolves into civil religion. Aristotle's lofty ethics, Alasdair MacIntyre reminds us, had no place fora good man showing love to a bad man - in other words, had no place for a gospel of grace.
In sum, the state must always water down the absoltue quality of Jesus' commands and turn them into a form of external morality - precisely the opposite of the gospel of grace. Jaques Ellul goes so far as to say the New Testament teaches no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian ethic." It commands conversion and then this; "Be perfect ... as your heavenly Father is perfect." Read the Sermon on the Mount and try to imagine any government enacting that set of laws.
A state government can shut down stores and theatres on Sunday, but it cannot compel worship. It can arrest and punish KKK murderers but cannot cure their hatred, much less teach them love. It can pass laws making divorce more difficult but cannot force husband to love their wives and wives their husbands. It can give subsidies to the poor but cannot force the rich to show them compassion and justice. It can ban adultery but not lust, theft but not covetousness, cheating but not pride. It can encourage virtue but not holiness. (Philip Yancey)

The Law Causes Sin
Rom 7So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

Another repeated quote from your copy-paste file :lol:. The argument that law causes sin is an extreme hyperbole, and I don't think you really believe that people learn how to covet only when the law tells them not to. If that was true, I think that by the same argument we can send lawyers straight to prison for life as soon as they pass the bar examination. :lol:

Everything. Western theological scholarship is scrupulous. I know this from having done part of a university degree in theology.

If the Gospel of Q or other such research findings had been based on a "certain set of beliefs" then they wouldn't have made it outside of the university they were written in. In case you've been living in a cocoon all your life, christian theological research is swamped by criticism and counter-criticism. If the gospel of Q is studied in universites and used as a source data by researchers the world over, you can pretty much guarentee that it has at least some credibiblility.

Why wouldn't it make it outside of the university where it was written? the certain set of beleifs are shared by a lot of Christians, I think, so they would be acceptable to most christians. This writing did not deviate a lot from the established beliefs of christianity, otherwise the gospels on which it was based would not have been canonized. If they had taken non-canonical writings into account, the research not have been accepted by mainstream christians.

We're not talking about the sacrifice; we're talking about the Haoma being associated with Immortality. Are you aware of the medieval christian legend of the Holy Grail and immortality? Same thing.

And this is what I was trying to say earlier. Jesus came for both Zoroastrians AND Jews. That's why he went out of his way to go against Zoroastrian purity laws, like not going anywhere near a dead person. Zarathustra says NOTHING about purity and laws in his Gathas; the laws were later additions. Jesus was taking Zoroastrianism all the way back to the Gathas, where it was supposed to be.

I agree that he was sent for both the Jews and the Zoroastrians, but about him being against the law, that needs yet to be proven. I'm not very familiar with Zoroastrianism so I can't discuss with you about when the laws were introduced to Zoroastrianism, and I can't accept your claims either because I know your research methodology, and it doesn't impress me much :tongue:

But from what I said, it is obvious that the sequence of events leading to the white haoma were not fulfilled in Christ, in the same chronological sequence, and that Jesus did not connect the eucharist to immortality, but it was the later chrsitians who added the connection. This makes it very likely that these additions were due to the influence of the mithraic cult which was very widespread in the Roman empire.

When I have the time I might research it in more detail and discuss it with you.

All you did was quote it from a faulty and antiquated bible translation.

The verse I quoted was ambiguous in the literal translation, and I quoted from the literal translation to make sure you see that it can be translated differently. I could have quoted from a different and more recent translation which says exactly the same thing which I was saying, but that wouldn't be very scholarly, because I know that the original is ambiguous, and each of the different translations was only exploring one of the possibilities and ignoring the other.

What I have been trying to do throughout this debate is to show you that there is an alternative explanation for all of your arguments.

Please could you present it again; the Isaiah verse plus the Matthew verse, and show me how you conclude this. Please use the NRSV.

You quoted this verse:
But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a man,
and whoever offers a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog's neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig's blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense,
like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and their souls delight in their abominations;

The new International Reader's Bible says:
3 But others are not like that.
They sacrifice bulls to me,
but at the same time they kill people.
They offer lambs to me,
but they also sacrifice dogs to other gods.
They bring grain offerings to me,
but they also offer pig's blood to other gods.
They burn incense to me,
but they also worship statues of gods.
They have chosen to go their own way.
They take delight in things I hate.

Two different interpretations, and both of the interpretations are valid because the literal translation is not clear. Let's forget Young's literal translation which you say is outdated. This is Holman's Christian standard bible which was completed in 2004. it doesn't make a comparison between slaughtering an ox and killing a man:

3 One slaughters an ox, one kills a man;
one sacrifices a lamb, one breaks a dog's neck;
one offers a grain offering, one offers swine's blood;
one offers incense, one praises an idol—
all these have chosen their ways
and delight in their abominations. (A)

This is darby's translation:

3He that slaughtereth an ox, smiteth a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, breaketh a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, [it is as] swine's blood; he that presenteth a memorial of incense, [is as] he that blesseth an idol. As they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations, (Not that [it is as] is between parenthesis because it is an interpolation)

From these different translations you can see clearly that the original text was ambiguous and each translator based his understanding on his understanding of the bible. Therefore I have used the literal translation to show that the text can have another interpretation which is:

Those who enaged in these acts of worship for God, also engaged in the abominations. They have chosen their own way which is indulging in sin and then giving sacrifices for show or trying to bribe God with these sacrifices, and that is an abomination in God's eyes, Therefore God does not accept their acts of worship because they are not sincere. .

This matches with the verse about the Pharisees in which they are abiding by some laws and neglecting the more important ones, therefore the part by which they abide is not accepted by God because they are just doing them for show, and not out of sincerity.

The reason I say this is because these scholars/archeologists have recently argued that Abraham was a myth, and Moses probably was as well.

Something further on this (not from these scholars but others). Abraham and the hindu god Brahma have more than just a few similarities. http://www.viewzone.com/abraham2.html

After the Sarasvati River dried up in 2000BC, the vedics migrated westwards as far as Palistine and Eygpt. They brought their god Brahma, with goddess Sarasvati with them. It was an exile for them; they believed they had wronged Sarasvati (just as they believed they had wronged YHWH when they were exiled in 600BC by the Babylonians). But Sarah (Sarasvati) - who is dried up and "barren" - and Abraham (Brahma) produce a son in their old age: Isaac. He produces 2 sons; Jacob and Esau. Esau means "Edom", and he respresents the Edomites, who, in the OT story, must always be in subjugation to the Israelites (a political ploy). And God changes Jacobs name to Israel.

Hence, Israel the nation is formed - out of the exiled Hindu gods; Brahma and Sarasvati.

You can verify any of this.

Some scholars have argued that YHWH is not God, but a dragon who happened the leading seraph from the council of Bnai Elohim who were also dragons.

YHWH and dragons have more than a few similarities.

The Hebrew people say that YHWH comsumed the sacrifices made to him and insisted that they are to be salted, and has even consumed two of Aaron's sons when they didn't put enough salt.

You can verfiy that too.:lol:

None of it was written by God. It was ALL written for political and social purposes. Have you read about the Code of Hammurabi? This is where the ancients first got the idea of a legal code from;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

The ancients, being a superstitious and simple lot, erroneously concluded that the stone tablets must be divine laws.

What I have written above furthers my argument that the "law" was never from God. It was man made.

actually, some scholars think that hammurabi's laws and the laws of Moses were brought by dragons, which are very real and were worshipped by a lot of ancient civilizations. each set of laws is different, which furthers the argument that they were brought by different dragons. :lmbo:

I have never met a single Christian who believes this. Muslims are the best example as law followers today. That's why they make such an excellent study and comparison. And, no, I'm not going to stop critiquing about Islam. :popcorn:

Don't stop critiquing about Islam, just don't turn everything into a debate about Islam vs. Christianity.

You may have never met a christian who believes this, but I think that doesn't mean you don't know about them. I think you've never met many Muslims who were living under a divine law either, as all the muslims you've met were living in a secular country, I guess, but that didn't stop you from making them a case study, so you can do the same about the christians. A comparison between the muslims and the christian wouldn't be a good indicator because they don't have the same guidelines and they have different books and different beliefs about everything, so the differences would be more likely to be due to the difference between the beliefs, and not to being bound by the law.

I don't watch TV - I'm deaf. :blush:

I'm really sorry. I didn't know that.:blush: - but you still remind me of joey :teeth:

Narnian

August 26th 2007, 10:50 PM

religious laws can also be changed within certain extents.

Can you give me an example of Sharia law that has been changed?

Can you explain your argument in biblical terms? The problem with you is that you superimpose concepts on the bible which were not existent there originally thereby turning christianity into something very complicated.

Oh? And yet your view - that Jesus came to confirm the law - is not found anywhere, including the gospel of Q.

Why wouldn't it make it outside of the university where it was written?

Well, you tell me - if Q is just a bunch of unresearched opinions of biased pseudo-scholars, how come it is widely accepted in academia?

I'm not very familiar with Zoroastrianism so I can't discuss with you about when the laws were introduced to Zoroastrianism, and I can't accept your claims either because I know your research methodology, and it doesn't impress me much

Here are the Gathas of Zarathustra. Find where he teaches rules, legalism or purity laws. It will only take you about 20 mins to go through it:

http://asha.page.tl/

The new International Reader's Bible says:
3 But others are not like that.
They sacrifice bulls to me,
but at the same time they kill people.
.

This is a translation that has added commentary - I have highlighted the words in red that do not appear in the DSS Hebrew version. It is not considered a good translation - thanks for showing me this. The original Hebrew is closer to this translation that you got from Darby's:

One slaughters an ox, one kills a man;
one sacrifices a lamb, one breaks a dog's neck;
one offers a grain offering, one offers swine's blood;"

It is using "simile" in poetic form. "One sings, one makes others happy; one laments, one makes others sad."

The NRSV was translated from the DSS version of Isaiah with the help of Hebrew scholars. The "is like" insertion is to demonstrate that this verse is a simile, since English uses "is like" for similes, whereas Hebrew doesn't.

This is a good bible search engine that has the NRSV, as well as Hebrew (see "NAS with Strongs Numbers).

http://bible.crosswalk.com/

This matches with the verse about the Pharisees in which they are abiding by some laws and neglecting the more important ones, therefore the part by which they abide is not accepted by God because they are just doing them for show, and not out of sincerity.

Mt 23:23 - "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.

"You tithe, yet you neglect justics, mercy and faith. Do these without neglecting tithing of mint, dill and cummin".

I don't see what this has got to do with Isaiah :ahem:

Don't stop critiquing about Islam, just don't turn everything into a debate about Islam vs. Christianity.

It boils down to Law versus Grace

You may have never met a christian who believes this, but I think that doesn't mean you don't know about them. I think you've never met many Muslims who were living under a divine law either, as all the muslims you've met were living in a secular country

I spent a enough time in Algeria to know. In fact, I have a travel blog of my first trip there;
http://www.travelblog.org/Africa/blog-87748.html

Chabchaba

August 27th 2007, 01:10 PM

Can you give me an example of Sharia law that has been changed?

A lot of laws were changed according to the circumstances and this was subject to shura (consultation) between the ruler and a council of experts. This link will give you an idea about it.

http://www.islamicvoice.com/february.99/fiqh.htm

Oh? And yet your view - that Jesus came to confirm the law - is not found anywhere, including the gospel of Q.

Well, you tell me - if Q is just a bunch of unresearched opinions of biased pseudo-scholars, how come it is widely accepted in academia?

I didn't say it's just a bunch of unresearched opinions. The people who did it have done a great job but still I believe that more can be done.

Here are the Gathas of Zarathustra. Find where he teaches rules, legalism or purity laws. It will only take you about 20 mins to go through it:

http://asha.page.tl/

I will research this more deeply later and we can discuss it then

Mt 23:23 - "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.

"You tithe, yet you neglect justics, mercy and faith. Do these without neglecting tithing of mint, dill and cummin".

I don't see what this has got to do with Isaiah :ahem:

It matches perfectly with the interpretation which I gave you for the Isaiah verse and which is possible because the texts is ambiguous.

It boils down to Law versus Grace

Ok can you make a comparison between law and grace in the christian sects? because that would be more revealing about the law being good or bad or neutral.

I spent a enough time in Algeria to know. In fact, I have a travel blog of my first trip there;
http://www.travelblog.org/Africa/blog-87748.html

Algeria is a secular country. Don't mix up between social customs of muslims and islamic laws because they are two very different things. Think of the social customs as secular laws, which might be the same as the religious laws in some instances, but still the basis for following them is different.

Narnian

August 27th 2007, 08:31 PM

http://www.islamicvoice.com/february.99/fiqh.htm

I didn't see any example of a law that had changed. Please could you spell it out to me. Name the law and then name how it changed. It should only be 1 or 2 sentences.

I didn't say it's just a bunch of unresearched opinions. The people who did it have done a great job but still I believe that more can be done.

What is your tertiary studies background?

I will research this more deeply later and we can discuss it then

Good :teeth: I look forward to discussing it with you.

Something I find interesting is the concept of "Asha" which, in that translation, has been translated to "Universal Truth". In Sanskrit it is "Rta", or "Arta", which morphed into "Asha". Buddhists call it "Dharma" .... and "Logos" is the same concept. It is traditionally translated as "word" in the NT, but this is wrong - it means "universal truth" and "logic" is derived from it.

Greek Logos reason, proportion, principle, standard", or "logic".
Sanskrit Rta the "order or course of things", cognate to Avestan aša. In the Vedas, rta lays the philosophical foundation for the Hindu conception of dharma.
Avestan Asha 'truth' and 'right(eousness)', 'order' and 'right working'
Hindi Dharma (help·info) (Pali: Dhamma) signifies the underlying order in nature and life (human or other) considered to be in accord with that order.
Chinese Tao (interestingly when Jesus speaks of "Zao" in the NT he means "spiritual life")

My point is that writers of the Torah and Quran, with their ancient superstitious way of thinking, misunderstood Logos/Asha to mean a "set of rules", rather than a larger, much deeper picture of the workings of the universe. If you can understand it in this way, it fits, then, that Jesus was born as "The Logos" (in John 1) and part of his mission was to refute how "universal principles" had become a man-made set of rules, and return it to its original divine definition, as both Zarathustra and Buddha understood.

It matches perfectly with the interpretation which I gave you for the Isaiah verse and which is possible because the texts is ambiguous.

So the poetic simile of " one slaughters a bull (is as if) one slaughter's a man" is connected with Jesus saying; "You tithe but you forget justice - don't forget justice OR tithing". I fail to see the connection. :ahem:

Ok can you make a comparison between law and grace in the christian sects? because that would be more revealing about the law being good or bad or neutral.

I already said I know of no christians who practice "The Law". Only muslims do this.

Algeria is a secular country. Don't mix up between social customs of muslims and islamic laws because they are two very different things.

I wasn't doing that. No Islamic country is entirely secular.

Chabchaba

August 28th 2007, 11:12 AM

I didn't see any example of a law that had changed. Please could you spell it out to me. Name the law and then name how it changed. It should only be 1 or 2 sentences.

Here are some examples:
The punishment for drinking wasn't specified in the quran or in the hadith, but later it was specified, and later changed.
The punishment specified in the Quran for stealing was suspended by Omar Ibn AlKhattab in a period of famine in Arabia.
The Quran specified how the Zakat (alms) was to be distributed, but that was also changed later.

All of these were changes according to the specific circumstances, and with the approval of the people through voting (shura)

What is your tertiary studies background?

It is something completely unrelated to theology.

Good :teeth: I look forward to discussing it with you.

Something I find interesting is the concept of "Asha" which, in that translation, has been translated to "Universal Truth". In Sanskrit it is "Rta", or "Arta", which morphed into "Asha". Buddhists call it "Dharma" .... and "Logos" is the same concept. It is traditionally translated as "word" in the NT, but this is wrong - it means "universal truth" and "logic" is derived from it.

Greek Logos reason, proportion, principle, standard", or "logic".
Sanskrit Rta the "order or course of things", cognate to Avestan aša. In the Vedas, rta lays the philosophical foundation for the Hindu conception of dharma.
Avestan Asha 'truth' and 'right(eousness)', 'order' and 'right working'
Hindi Dharma (help·info) (Pali: Dhamma) signifies the underlying order in nature and life (human or other) considered to be in accord with that order.
Chinese Tao (interestingly when Jesus speaks of "Zao" in the NT he means "spiritual life")

My point is that writers of the Torah and Quran, with their ancient superstitious way of thinking, misunderstood Logos/Asha to mean a "set of rules", rather than a larger, much deeper picture of the workings of the universe. If you can understand it in this way, it fits, then, that Jesus was born as "The Logos" (in John 1) and part of his mission was to refute how "universal principles" had become a man-made set of rules, and return it to its original divine definition, as both Zarathustra and Buddha understood.

I can discuss this with you now. The christian logos is something absolute, and was the agent in the creation, but in the dual system of zoroastrianism asha is opposed to the druj (violations of the order), but this belief does not fit in with a strictly montheical religion like Islam or Judaism. It is not about superstition, but about a belief system which says that God is one, and that He is Omnipotent, while your beliefs about a God who is not omnipotent requires a different interpretation of the world.

In the zoroastrian theology asha would not be an agent in creation of the world, as the world has the good and the bad elements, so it is not synonymous with the christian logos, and since Islam and Judaism do not beleive in duality, any comparison between their belief system and the zoroastrian beleif system would be superficial.

So the poetic simile of " one slaughters a bull (is as if) one slaughter's a man" is connected with Jesus saying; "You tithe but you forget justice - don't forget justice OR tithing". I fail to see the connection. :ahem:

Why did you put (is as if) in the text? Why not put (at the same time)? It is also a possibility according to the origianl hebrew, and in this instance the text in Young's literal translation is the most accurate, so this verse cannot be cited as evidence for or against sacrifices, as any one can put the meaning he wants into this ambiguous verse. Even the poetic simile which can be found in the english translation is not evident in the Hebrew.

The DSS version is aramaic, and has some small differences from the origianl Hebrew, by the way.

I already said I know of no christians who practice "The Law". Only muslims do this.

Here is a link about the ethiopian church which believes in following the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Tewahedo_Church

you can make a comparison between the ethiopian church and the coptic church of egypt because they are both oriental orthodox churches and the only major difference between them is that the ethiopians practice the law.

I wasn't doing that. No Islamic country is entirely secular.

And no Christian country is entirely secular either, even if they claim they are :smile:

Narnian

August 29th 2007, 04:18 AM

All of these were changes according to the specific circumstances, and with the approval of the people through voting (shura)

Good - a lot more needs to change, and I think that unless the Quran is deconstructed as "Allah's dictated word" it will be very difficult to bring the muslim world up to the same standards and quality of life as the christian world.

It is something completely unrelated to theology.

So what is it then? Zoology?

It is not about superstition, but about a belief system which says that God is one, and that He is Omnipotent, while your beliefs about a God who is not omnipotent requires a different interpretation of the world.

Zoroastrians do not believe God is Omnipotent until the Frashokereti (the End Times). Ahura Mazda is purely good and never created any bad or evil. Because he is pure goodness he would get rid of evil if he could. Until the Frashokereti, his "fellow workers" - called "Hamkars" (Synergoi in the NT) - need to propagate as much goodness - in thought, word and deed - as possible, to weaken the evil so the Frashokereti can take place.

In the zoroastrian theology asha would not be an agent in creation of the world, as the world has the good and the bad elements, so it is not synonymous with the christian logos

Logos doesn't create the world - Logos is an emanation of God. Likewise, Asha is the most important of the Amesha Spentas - which mean "divine emanations" and can be likened to "God's children" - in that they are "sparks" from the original 'fire' (God). Asha is the first and most important of the Amesha Spentas. So, while God/Mazda creates the world, his "sparks" are sent down to help humans. This is both Christian and Zoroastrian underlying theolgy.

and since Islam and Judaism do not beleive in duality, any comparison between their belief system and the zoroastrian beleif system would be superficial.

That's why pre-exilic Judaism and Islam are more alike than Zoroastrianism and Christianity, as I have been demonstrating all along. Unlike Judaism, the Christian idea of God is that he never creates evil or bad. They are separate creations.

luke 6 43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.

1Jo 1:5 God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.
mark 10:18 No one is good but God alone.

Why did you put (is as if) in the text? Why not put (at the same time)? It is also a possibility according to the origianl hebrew, and in this instance the text in Young's literal translation is the most accurate, so this verse cannot be cited as evidence for or against sacrifices, as any one can put the meaning he wants into this ambiguous verse. Even the poetic simile which can be found in the english translation is not evident in the Hebrew.

OK, let's put the verse together as you say it should be;

3 One slaughters an ox at the same time one kills a human being; one sacrifices a lamb, at the same time one breaks a dog's neck; one presents a grain offering, at the same time one offers swine's blood.

This is not consistent. Which Jew was regularly offering pig's blood or breaking dogs' necks? Where is breaking a dog's neck an actual sin? :uhoh:

Here is another:

Isaiah 1:11 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12 When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; 13 bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation: I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. 14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me.

The DSS version is aramaic, and has some small differences from the origianl Hebrew, by the way.

Isaiah was written after the exile, when biblical Hebrew had become extinct. So Aramaic was the orignal, not Hebrew. It was then translated into Hebrew around 100AD, after being translated into Greek in 200BC.

It is quite possible that this scoll was the original 66 chapter version anyway - don't forget there was no printing press in those days. The next oldest Book of Isaiah is 1100 years younger (written in Hebrew in 1000AD).

you can make a comparison between the ethiopian church and the coptic church of egypt because they are both oriental orthodox churches and the only major difference between them is that the ethiopians practice the law.

I can't really comment as I don't know them - they are a tiny drop in a vast ocean of Christians. Don't forget that Judaism after the exile, and contact with the Persians, changed radically, and the "spirit of the Law" was juxtaposed against the literal law. Ethics were brought into the picture. This is why there were so many jewish sects; many of them having zoroastrian elements about them - some more "spirit of the law" others "literal". Debates went on for centuries. Today, you have some jewish sects that are more literal and others more "spirit" ie that Kabbala sect that Madonna belongs to. I know many jews, but none of them stick to any sort of jewish law, yet they still call themselves "jews" and believe in God.

Don't forget that Judaism never had a heaven or hell - so no salvation was gained from following the Law - this is where Islam, yet again, misunderstood. In ancient times, punishment from YHWH came in the form of good or bad crops, illness or health, battle victory or loss, etc. YHWH was a sort of lucky charm who, when plied with gifts, and properly tweaked rituals, granted goodies in return. Only in Islam do we find the ideology of following this ancient bronze age "Law" to reach heaven. Islam matches two ideologies - one from Judaism (law) and the other from Zoroastrianism (heaven). :ahem:

And no Christian country is entirely secular either, even if they claim they are

Well I'd rather have Jesus as head of the country than a ruthless criminal like Muhammad! :ahem:

Chabchaba

August 29th 2007, 10:08 AM

Good - a lot more needs to change, and I think that unless the Quran is deconstructed as "Allah's dictated word" it will be very difficult to bring the muslim world up to the same standards and quality of life as the christian world.

You missed the point. Those who changed the laws were the direct successors of the prophet, not people who denied that the quran was dictated by God. They changed it when the situation had changed, but they still believed that the Quran is God's dictated word. It is just that the laws were made and changed to suit the specific circumstances.

Sharia laws are based oninterpretation of the quran and hadith, but they are not themselves dictated by God. There are different interpretations and there are many things which were not specified in the law.

The issue of standards and quality of life is not related to whether the laws are dictated by God, or not, as there are some european christian countries with very low standards and quality of life.

By the way do you remember the verse about not asking questions? Its meaning may not have been clear in English but the verse was actually about not making too many rules. The idea is: there are rules and people have to follow them, but God intentionally did not make rules about some things, to give the people some flexibility. That is what people were told not to ask about. Does it make sense for you now? link (http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=101&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0)

So what is it then? Zoology?

What's it got to do with the debate?

Zoroastrians do not believe God is Omnipotent until the Frashokereti (the End Times). Ahura Mazda is purely good and never created any bad or evil. Because he is pure goodness he would get rid of evil if he could. Until the Frashokereti, his "fellow workers" - called "Hamkars" (Synergoi in the NT) - need to propagate as much goodness - in thought, word and deed - as possible, to weaken the evil so the Frashokereti can take place.

So if the bad people win the Frashokerti will also take place but Ahriman will win instead of Ahura Mazda. And Ahriman will take the bad people to heaven and the good people to hell. That is very comforting :smile:

Logos doesn't create the world - Logos is an emanation of God. Likewise, Asha is the most important of the Amesha Spentas - which mean "divine emanations" and can be likened to "God's children" - in that they are "sparks" from the original 'fire' (God). Asha is the first and most important of the Amesha Spentas. So, while God/Mazda creates the world, his "sparks" are sent down to help humans. This is both Christian and Zoroastrian underlying theolgy.

The christian logos is the creator and there is no opposing force to it, unlike the zoroastrian asha which is opposed directly to the druj.

That's why pre-exilic Judaism and Islam are more alike than Zoroastrianism and Christianity, as I have been demonstrating all along. Unlike Judaism, the Christian idea of God is that he never creates evil or bad. They are separate creations.

luke 6 43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.

1Jo 1:5 God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.
mark 10:18 No one is good but God alone.

It's not just pre-exillic judaism which believes in an omnipotent God. The concept of Satan as an adversary of God is a christian concept which has no place in Judaism. In Islam evil comes from the people who have free choice. If people didn't have free choice and the ability to sin and do evil, there would be no point in having hell and heaven (which are also existent in zoroastrianism).

The attribution of evil to a dark force or an adversary of God like Satan or Ahriman is just a way for people to push the blame away from themselves because they don't want to see the evil inside them and deal with it.

OK, let's put the verse together as you say it should be;

3 One slaughters an ox at the same time one kills a human being; one sacrifices a lamb, at the same time one breaks a dog's neck; one presents a grain offering, at the same time one offers swine's blood.

This is not consistent. Which Jew was regularly offering pig's blood or breaking dogs' necks? Where is breaking a dog's neck an actual sin? :uhoh:

The jews who were serving other gods were sacrificing dogs to Ba'al and offering swine's blood to the other gods (because as you know they wouldn't sacrifice dogs and offer swine's blood at the jewish temple).

Here is another:

Isaiah 1:11 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12 When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? Trample my courts no more; 13 bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation: I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. 14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me.

God doesn't like solemn assemblies from people who indulge in iniquity. Their offerings and acts of worship are nothing but bribes to God to look the other way from their iniquities, and they forget God does not need these things, it's they who need his forgiveness. Therefore He hates their new moons and festivals and burnt offerings. makes sense to me :smile:

I can't really comment as I don't know them - they are a tiny drop in a vast ocean of Christians. Don't forget that Judaism after the exile, and contact with the Persians, changed radically, and the "spirit of the Law" was juxtaposed against the literal law. Ethics were brought into the picture. This is why there were so many jewish sects; many of them having zoroastrian elements about them - some more "spirit of the law" others "literal". Debates went on for centuries. Today, you have some jewish sects that are more literal and others more "spirit" ie that Kabbala sect that Madonna belongs to. I know many jews, but none of them stick to any sort of jewish law, yet they still call themselves "jews" and believe in God.

I maintain that you can keep ethics while still following the law. You haven't provided any proof to the contrary besides your opinion.

I personally know a lot of Orthodox people from both the Ethiopian Church and the Coptic Church, and I can tell you from firsthand observation that it's easy to stick to the literal law and the spirit of the law at the same time.

Don't forget that Judaism never had a heaven or hell - so no salvation was gained from following the Law - this is where Islam, yet again, misunderstood. In ancient times, punishment from YHWH came in the form of good or bad crops, illness or health, battle victory or loss, etc. YHWH was a sort of lucky charm who, when plied with gifts, and properly tweaked rituals, granted goodies in return. Only in Islam do we find the ideology of following this ancient bronze age "Law" to reach heaven. Islam matches two ideologies - one from Judaism (law) and the other from Zoroastrianism (heaven). :ahem:

According to the Talmud and Midrash, the soul maintains a relationship with the body for one year after death, and this was considered a year of purgatory, at least for the wicked. After that, the righteous were supposed to gain entrance to Paradise (Gan Eden) and the wicked were cast into Geihinnom. (Gei Hinnom, which literally means "Hinnom Valley," is the source of the Greek word "Gehenna" which is used in the New Testament and usually translated "Hell". )
http://www.amfi.org/mailbag/Afterlife.htm
“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” says the Book of Daniel 12:2 , written around 165 B.C
Well I'd rather have Jesus as head of the country than a ruthless criminal like Muhammad! :ahem:

You can't claim the moral high ground here, because, generally speaking, the secular countries with a christian majority are no better than the secular countries with a muslim majority. I believe that throughout history, the former have waged more wars of aggression than the latter. But anyway it's interesting that now you imply that you're pro religious laws if they agree with your views :wink:

Narnian

August 29th 2007, 11:05 PM

The idea is: there are rules and people have to follow them, but God intentionally did not make rules about some things, to give the people some flexibility. That is what people were told not to ask about. Does it make sense for you now? link (http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=101&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0)

No, it doesn't; I think this is Taqqiya, and besides, there are hundreds of verses in the Quran that tell you one thing then add another. Islam is built on deceit.

The link you sent was blank. What is the verse number again?

So if the bad people win the Frashokerti will also take place but Ahriman will win instead of Ahura Mazda. And Ahriman will take the bad people to heaven and the good people to hell. That is very comforting

good is always stronger than evil; so there has never been any doubt about the Last Battle; it will be an anti-climax; because evil is inherently weak. That's why Jesus taught the notion of "turn the other cheek". If we always feel we have to defend against evil, it shows that deep down we think that evil is greater than good.

The christian logos is the creator and there is no opposing force to it, unlike the zoroastrian asha which is opposed directly to the druj.

Um, the opposing force to The Logos is Satan. :uhoh:

The "druj" is "The Liar", which is just another word for "satan" and his evil spirits.

From the Gathas (1200BC)
32. 2 Those who fight The Liar by thought, word, deed, and uses his hands to convert the misled to the good, do the will of Ahura Mazda
46.6 He who supports the Liar, will fall into the Lie, and he who supports the righteous is himself righteous.
44.8 Firstly, I replied; I am Zarathushtra; a true foe of the Liar, shunning all evil.
44.13 I ask you humbly, O Ahura, tell me truly. How should we completely drive the Liar away from us?

From the Gospels:

1John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

Here Jesus refers to the Jewish God "Yahweh" as the Liar:

John 8:44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

In Zoroastrianism the "Father of Lies" is Satan.

Keep trying :teeth:

It's not just pre-exillic judaism which believes in an omnipotent God.

There is no evidence that he was considered omnipotent even by the Jews; and the word or teaching does not exist in the OT (nor the NT for that matter). See Judges 1:19 for example.

The famous Jewish Rabbi Harold Kushner has written many books on this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Bad_Things_Happen_to_Good_People

(Kushner) contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.

The concept of Satan as an adversary of God is a christian concept which has no place in Judaism. In Islam evil comes from the people who have free choice.

What about Allah causing people to go astray and calling those he wills? Where is the free will in that? The Quran doesn't even mention the word "conscience" which is the basis of free will.

Rudolph Freiling in my book Christianity and Islam has a chapter on this. Here is an excerpt. Note especially the last sentence;

"The way in which the koran frequently repeats the sentence; "Allah leads astray whomsoever he will' is nothing short of shocking. It is not merely a chance remark. "What, do you desire to guide him whom Allah has led astray" Whom Allah leads astray, you will not find for him a way" (4:90 plus 4:142, 6:125,7:185, 13:27 14:4 16:39,95, 35:9,42:41,45, 45:22,74:34) .... some have tried to soften Allah's "leading astray" into permission for man to go his own way. According to Rudi Paret, however, the arabic word in question can only be understood as "to cause deliberately" (Mohammed und der Koran, p99)

How can anyone have free will, yet be deliberately led astray? Or, if they are lucky (unlucky more like it), to be led to Allah? Not only that, the muslim has no control over his or her fate in salvation, because salvation is not assured, and noone is certain except for mass murdering "martyrs".

In contrast,

Hebrews 5:14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Free Will in Islam?? :noid: What a load of Taqqiya!! :lol:

The attribution of evil to a dark force or an adversary of God like Satan or Ahriman is just a way for people to push the blame away from themselves because they don't want to see the evil inside them and deal with it.

Mixing good and evil together is lethal, because the distinctions between good and evil become unclear. Like this, Islam has always been susceptible to a system of thought that subtly blurs semantic distinctions until in the end evil is being called good.

The jews who were serving other gods were sacrificing dogs to Ba'al and offering swine's blood to the other gods (because as you know they wouldn't sacrifice dogs and offer swine's blood at the jewish temple).

There is ZERO evidence of Jews doing either of these 2 practices. The pig's blood and dog's neck is just a hyperbolic and poetic way of saying their "law" rituals are abonimations.

God doesn't like solemn assemblies from people who indulge in iniquity. Their offerings and acts of worship are nothing but bribes to God to look the other way from their iniquities, and they forget God does not need these things, it's they who need his forgiveness. Therefore He hates their new moons and festivals and burnt offerings. makes sense to me

That's exactly what I was saying; The Law is nothing other than a bribe. You summed it up nicely for me :teeth:

I maintain that you can keep ethics while still following the law. You haven't provided any proof to the contrary besides your opinion.

So, how do ethics fit with chopping off thieves' hands, stoning and whipping people, beating your wife, eye for an eye, woman for a woman, retribution, jihad, slaughtering 10s of 1000s of animals at Haj, just to be burnt and having sex with little girls .... for exmaple?

it's easy to stick to the literal law and the spirit of the law at the same time.

It's easy to fool yourself as well. :ahem:

According to the Talmud and Midrash, the soul maintains a relationship with the body for one year after death, and this was considered a year of purgatory, at least for the wicked. After that, the righteous were supposed to gain entrance to Paradise (Gan Eden) and the wicked were cast into Geihinnom. (Gei Hinnom, which literally means "Hinnom Valley," is the source of the Greek word "Gehenna" which is used in the New Testament and usually translated "H