Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto 3d artist jobs in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Website development jobs in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Dubai politics talk

A letter to Mr Bush


jabbajabba Found this today; Dear President Bush, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm pretty sure she's a virgin). 3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of abomination? 6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. It must be really great to be on such close terms with God and his son, ... even better than you and your own Dad, eh?
Frederick New Testament=Christians Old Testament=Jews shafique Jesus says in the New Testament: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."(Matthew 5:17) That said, Christians do not follow all the commandments found in the Bible but rather use the interpretations of scholars/teachers to decide which one's to follow and which one's aren't really the commandments which should be followed. For example, the NT contains instructions from St Paul that women should not speak in Church. Also that women should cover their heads. My Christian friends say that women not speaking in church is in a letter and was a piece of advice that need not be followed this day. On women covering their heads, they say that at the time of the advice - women of loose morals did not cover their heads, nowadays this is not the case and Christian women are not required to cover their heads. It goes without saying therefore that the OT injunctions are similarly subject to interpretation - but the logic goes that whilst Jesus did not change the laws, he did free people who believe in him from the necessity of following the laws to attain salvation (they would just need to have faith - and having faith means you will follow the laws - but it is not following the laws that gives you the salvation, but the fact you have faith. If you decide to not follow the laws, that shows you don't have faith - the logic goes - because Jesus said 'Faith without works is dead'). When I point out that this doesn't make logic to most people - they tell me that Peter or Paul says in the NT that faith isn't logical. Anyway, the letter does show that the 'word of God' isn't eternal according to Christians - but it would be interesting to hear if Jews still think it is ok to sell children into slavery etc??? :shock: :D Cheers, Shafique Flying Dutchman All religions based on holy scriptures written centuries ago have to deal with internal and external inconsistencies. This is true for the OT, NT and the Koran. When pointing out some inconsistencies in the Koran, I also get the answer that Islam is much more than the Koran itself and that I should read the hadith, the interpretations etc. The same is true for Judaism. In Christianity this differs between the RC´s and protestants, but the same applies, they are interpreting. And some arrive at other conclusions than others, like in Judaism and Islam. Whether it is still allowed for jews to sell their children as slaves? I doubt it very much. I never heard of such a case, but maybe it is a big underground thing...who knows what goes on in their synagogues... shafique FD - I don't believe that there are any internal inconstitencies in the Quran. Happy to investigate the ones you have in mind if you want to start another thread (and I've looked into supposed inconsistencies raised by non-Muslims, and haven't yet found that any that stand a cursory investigation). However, to be fair to all previous scriptures - none make the claim to be the final message, or that the injunctions are universal. In fact, all contain warnings of punishments that will be meted out to people who falsify scripture - an indication that scriptures will become corrupted. (God does not state punishments for acts that won't take place - so the Quran contains no such warning, but rather a promise that the Quran will be protected by God. However, the practice of Muslims has been corrupted despite the pristine-ness of the Quran). Cheers, Shafique Flying Dutchman Very interested to discuss this, so a new thread would be appreciated. Looking forward to your views. Frederick
See Hebrews 8 and the ushering in of the Old Covenant. The passage you have brought up explains that the Law is not bad by any stretch, even though Jesus is preaching things not within it, nor should it be disregarded and libertinism embraced. However, Scripture is unequivically clear that the Old Covenant and the Law are no longer the ethos under which Christians live, nor is it the means of salvation. Christ is the salvation and his teaching, conveyed through the apostles, is the ethos.

You cannot keep only part of the Law. The entirety of the Law is not abolished, but obsolete as the author of Hebrews says. Frederick dp Frederick
Often the long hair of a woman is considered her head covering. Different Christian groups understand the command in different ways. Most, however, have some kind of stance on head covering. shafique Frederick, The multitude of views on the issue of women covering their heads is testimony to my point that Christians do indeed choose which commandments of the Bible to consider eternal and binding, and which can be ignored. The multitude of 'churches' and factions/sections within churches reflect that there is a spectrum of interpretation. Gibbon's 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' gives an account of the early church which is at variance from official church doctrine/history - but does show the diversity of views in the early church. Significantly, not everyone believed in the Trinity. (I'm currently reading his accounts of Islam before going to the Chapters about the early church - and, yes, I am aware of the controversy around his accounts and have also read more modern scholars of Christian history and know what is accepted as historical evidence and what is Gibbon's opinion..) Each Church does believe that their interpretation of Christian Dogma is internally consistent - and in that there is no difference between any other religious group in the world. Muslims may argue that the Quran contains no contradictions and all verses are sacred and eternal. However the Quran itself says that the Quran contains clear injunctions and ambiguous verses, subject to interpretation. It also contains verses which only apply in certain circumstances - eg. you must free slaves (requires that you have slaves). Cheers, Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
benwj
I thought that it was more like:
Jews = Old Testament
Christians = Old Testament + New Testament
Muslims = Old Testament + New Testament + Koran
I can pick any story from the Bible and find differences, similarities and contradictions between it and the Koran. But these can easily be explained by someone who interprets them differently, so I don't see the point in the exercise. jabbajabba
Very good point. Frederick Shafique
The Christian answer is that the Law was the only means by which people could begin to enter into fellowship with God prior to the sanctifying act of Jesus\' death. So without the gift of salvation given by Jesus, there could be no New Covenant which would mean the Old Covenant, that is the Law, is still in effect.

Christians may do both. In the beginnings of the Christian movement there formed a group known as the Ebionites who were both Christians and held to the Law. What created a problem for them, as well as for some in the New Testament period, is the claim that you must follow the Law in order to be saved. A number of the epistles of Paul, if not most, address at some point this particular mistake reminding people that with the coming of Christ there is a more perfect means of reaching God; faith and obedience are better than sacrifice. This wasn\'t a new concept with the coming of Jesus either. The Old Testament prophets attested to it. Hosea 6:6 says, For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Psalm 40:6 reads, Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. Both of these passages are quoted in the New Testament to attest to the idea that I presented. The author of Hebrews who talks most extensively about the Law no longer being in effect quotes the Psalmist and Jesus himself quotes Hosea. The Old Testament recognition of the futility of the Law is best summed up in Micah 6:8.
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. This is what the God of both Testaments desires uniformly. Frederick dp shafique Frederick, My point about Christians choosing which parts of the Bible to consider as binding laws and which to ignore used the example of the Biblical commandment that women should cover their hair. My understanding is that St Paul also advocated this practice in the NT, and hence the arguments about it being an OT law that was no longer required in the new covenant should be moot (for Paul would not advocate a law that did not still apply - I would think). Similarly with the Biblical injunction that women should not speak in Church - this is in a letter written by St Paul. It does not say that this is not meant for all Christian women, and is in the Bible - but yet it is an injunction that modern day Christians choose not to follow. The fact we have unitarian Christians today, and that Christians sharing these views can be found in the early church (many were persecuted by Christians), shows that even core teachings about the Divinity of Christ were in dispute by readers of the same Bible. A friend gave me a statistic that may or may not be true - of the current Bible (OT and NT), the Church effectively censors 60% of the verses - in that they are not taught or read in church. Eg. all the verses relating to violence, slavery etc. There are some violent verses in the Bible - for example calling for the killings of women and children and all living things of the disbelievers. However, I wasn't aware that the self-censored portions of the Bible amounted to more than half. Cheers, Shafique freza Everyone can interpret things differently but the holy books are the most studied writings of all times and there is definitely a consensus and solid expertise about the meaning and true interpretation and applications of their teachings.
The Bible is considered to be a book of universality that transcends time. Which basically means that some things never change for humans no matter what era as are basic yet fundamental issues like finding meaning to life, conflict, faith, love, hate, morality, war, justice/injustice etc. and these are the elements that the most important writings and teachings encompass. The tricky part was for its "laws" to apply to the people that lived in the past as well as for people or our times and times to come. Obviously not everything that applied to people of ancient times will literally apply to our times but that doesn't discount the transcendent nature of the Bible. (And why some people take every single detail in the holy books completely literally is beyond me.) Some things that were written for ancient people will have a new and modern application yet they are not a pick and choose issue but rather an evolving issue. For example idolatry. Some Christian sects condemn religious imageries as they see this as idolatry based on the literate interpretations found in the Bible that condemns idol worship (ex. Exodus 20, 3-5). These commands against idol and figurine worship applied to people that worshiped multiple pagan gods and that basically made up stuff to worship (sometimes out of boredom). The broad understanding though is not that all religious symbols = idol worship, the understanding is that this command was not against people that believe in monotheism and have images and statues of monotheistic belief but against the worshipers of falsehoods. This command can be said to apply to modern times as the new idolatry is the rampant worship of shallowness, materialism, celebrities, etc. shafique
I have to disagree in respect of the Bible and Christianity - I do not believe there is a consensus about the 'one true meaning'.
I base this view on the multiplicity of sects with Christianity which dispute many fundamentals concepts - such as who one should pray to (is it ok to pray to the Virgin Mary, for example) and even on whether Trinity is a valid belief or not.
However, amongst the sects that do believe in Trinity and salvation through belief in Jesus' death on the cross - there is consensus on their interpretation of the Bible. My point is that those who selected the Bible had a prior belief set when they selected the books - and for me it is therefore no surprise that the Bible contains verses which back up their beliefs.
Now the argument is that the belief is right because the Bible says so.
This normally makes my head spin as we get into a circular argument along the lines, for instance I recently had the following sequence with a born again Christian.
Me: Jesus does not say or teach to pray to him, but rather to pray to God.
Christian: Agreed, but the Bible also says we should pray to him.
M. But Jesus did not teach this.
C. But what the Bible says elsewhere is equally valid.
M. Why?
C. Because it is the word of God.
M. But there are contradictions and additions - so some verses are not the word of God. How can you tell which is which?
C. Yes there are contradictions, but overall there is consensus on the meanings of the Bible. We trust our scholars.
M. Some other sects disagree - do you pray to Virgin Mary?
C. No - my interpretation of the Bible is right, the Catholics are being misled.
M. So there is disagreement?
C. Not on the big items. The main aspects of theology we all agree on.
M. But the Bible was compiled by people who shared this theology and disagreed with others who held different ones..
C. I'm not really familiar with the compilation of the bible - but I believe it all to be the word of God.
M. But it can't all be the word of God as it contains verses which are additions and other verses you choose not to follow.
C. You are just trying to confuse me!!
Sigh.
Cheers,
Shafique freza Shafique, I should have said a consensus with some exceptions of course. But I do believe that the consensus is there on many of the most important interpretations and applications of the Bible. Those that have different interpretations are usually those that have or choose to have a different translation of the Bible and we know how things can get lost in translation... Even modern Bible scholars still struggle with the most appropriate meaning of some words written in ancient Greek. There are also the oldest churches of Christianity that have deep rooted customs like some of the Orthodox Christians whose difference (compared to other Christian groups) can hardly be considered invalid. And then there are the clueless sects (like the Jehova's Witnesses) who have mixed some bizarre Scientology-like beliefs with Christianity and who take the Bible completely literally. I think we all have the capability of knowing what is a serious and scholarly minded movement and which is not. Not all Bible scholars are religious or even affiliated with any religion, some are only academic/historians so I think it helps to see the Bible as a history book and as a work that has been investigated, translated and interpreted by a valid group of scholars for many many years and as accurately as possible. Again, go with the consensus that meets this criteria not with one that meets their own agenda. Now whatever some people choose to do with the most accurate interpretation...well that's their judgment not the Bible's. I think that rather inconsequential disagreements amongst Christian groups should hardly be an issue. it's an issue when religion is twisted to justify the opposite of what it stands for. Such as the twisted stuff that GWB and some of these similar "Christian" people believe in. shafique Freza, Let us agree to disagree. I have not found Jehova's witnesses to be irrational or to have bizare 'scientology' like beliefs - but rather they only claim to have gone back to the original (and yes literal) teachings of the Bible. They claim to have gone and studied the Bible and reject all the trappings (such as Christmas on 25th December) that have come later. They don't have a new prophet, but rely on scholarly interpretation of the Bible - and this includes rejecting Trinity. Also, the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism relate to the latter's interpretation of the Bible and the rejection of some of the canon of catholicism - again, another argument against your general point that there is consensus of interpretation of the Bible amongst Christians. In my experience and studies, there isn't - there is a healthy debate amongst theologians today, and there was an unhealthy period of persecution and censorship of 'heretical' Christian views in the past. That said, most Christians are unaware of the theological debates and believe what their particular church tells them Christian theology teaches - so this does give the illusion of a consensus - but this illusion very quickly vanishes when one delves into topics raised in this thread. Cheers, Shafique
benwj
The existance of so many different sects of each religion proves that there is not a consensus at all. There are so many religions that you can almost choose any that matches your interpretation of the original interpretations... err writings.

This is because the cultures in which Christianity has existed do not prevent anyone changing a few rules to suit themselves.
How long do you think that I would last if I started an Islamic based religion that allows followers to eat pork.
My point is that just because you think that it is wrong, doesn't mean that I can't interpret it differently.
But Islam is by no means immune to change. You seem to be overlooking the fact that it has it's own fair share of factions. Sunni, Shite, Taliban to name just a few. shafique
You make some good points.
However, the phrase 'cultures in which Christianity existed' is a little puzzling to me. Christianity started off in Palestine amongst Semitic/Middle East culture. The earliest churches were of African culture (Assyrian/Ethiopic as well as Coptic); Roman and Greek - but mostly it was an Eastern religion. Is this what you meant, or did you want to use the word 'Western' :wink: ?
Most of these 'cultures' did modify Christianity to suit their prior beliefs and also changed over time.
As for Islam - I think I pointed out the fact muslims are divided into many sects DESPITE the fact that the Quran has been uncorrupted and does not contain any contradictions or abrogated verses (and hence why I started a new thread on the subject).
As for starting a muslim sect that eats pork - I think you'll find that you won't be the first to do this. There are some off-shoots of Islam that do think it's ok to eat pork and not pray 5 times a day etc. I think that the Druze will fall into this category - they trace their religion back to a branch of Shia Islam, but now have beliefs that include re-incarnation, and the Druze I have met eat pork and drink alcohol (although this could be just them ignoring their teachings - but they did tell me about not praying and reincarnation being their beliefs).
All that said, I agree with your basic premise though - there is no consensus in interpretation!
Cheers,
Shafique valkyrie Shafique,
While people have different beliefs about what Christianity is, that does not make them correct or religious authorities.
As far as Jesus saying he didn't abolish the laws, he was saying that with the intent to show that he wasn't rejecting God's laws, but rather that the purpose of the old law was to stand in until the new law came about and the old was fulfilled.

Link's not working. Look up the Sanaa manuscripts on wikipedia. shafique
They (the leaders/priests/theologians of the different sects) believe they are correct and have the religious authority.

That is one interpretation.
Jesus also said 'Faith without works is dead' - which my Christian colleagues tell me means that if one has faith one obeys the laws of God. Therefore Christians still follow the laws of God, and Jesus said he did not come to change the law.

Ok, will do - perhaps I'll start a new thread on the fact (as I understand it) that the Quran is uncorrupted.
Cheers,
Shafique valkyrie
Christ also said the Sabbath was made for man, man wasn't made for the sabbath.
If your interpretation is correct, then Christ is condemning his own actions when he regularly broke the sabbath.
Edit: It's actually sana'a shafique
Or alternatively, the Bible's contradictions are evidence of its corruption?
I looked up the Sanaa documents - it talks of minor variations, but doesn't list what these are. However, the Quran's primary means of preservation was not written documents but rather the memorisation by thousands of people. The history of the compilation of the written Quran records instances of textual errors in the writings and that these were always checked against the oral recitation of those who had memorised the Quran.
This was the practice going back to the time of the revelation of the Quran. Only when non-native Arab speakers started misprounouncing the Quranic text and therefore inadvertantly changing the meaning was there a campaign to standardise the text (i.e. the written representation of the oral revelation) and record the words in the Quraish dialect of Arabic.
A misconception is that the different pronunciations of the same Arabic words (Quirat sp?) represented different versions of the Quran. The underlying word was the same, but it was pronounced differently by different tribes. Arabic is written phonetically (then and now - but then it was a different script) and hence different pronunciations would be written differently - but the underlying word and meaning would be the same.
That said, happy to discuss if you do think the Quran was corrupted/changed - the wiki entry did not say what words were different, so I can't really comment further.
Cheers,
Shafique freza Shafique,
Agreeing to disagreeing is fine by me but I'm not sure you completely understood my viewpoint. The consensus that I mentioned for me lies on seeing the study of the Bible as a historical book and an important work of literature which has been translated and interpreted as such by academics and historians regardless of religion. If you want to talk about different religious interpretations, Christianity's bloody history, etc. that's one thing, but to see the Bible as a work of literature stripped of religious agenda is another thing. Sure there are still many mysteries to the Bible and debates but I think debates are a good thing, don't you? But to think that the interpretation of the Bible can be completely different from one spectrum to another is just not reasonable. Not when you're talking about serious and long established groups.
About Jehova's..hhm now you might know a lot of rational Jehova's Witnesses, I know some myself, they're very nice people but their sect is anything but scholarly and not exactly rational. Look at the history of the JW. It was only created in the late 1800s and they've gone through very extreme "doctrine" changes in this short period of their existence. The JW leaders predicted the end of the world...umm, didn't happen. At one time they worshiped Jesus, now they don't. This is not religious evolution, this is not having a sense of direction. Though their intentions I'm sure are good. If you're into exposing contradictions, you will find countless contradictions with the JW.
And I insist, interpreting all parts of the Bible solely at face value does not equal scholarly work.
Benj
I don't think one can say that there are many Christian sects or at least not many noteworthy ones. Recently there are proliferations of some groups but I think this has more to do with ministries (their agendas) and their impact on local poor populations in many developing countries and also media driven ministries in developed countries. Protestants have offshoot groups but really it's mostly two main schools of thought (Catholic / Protestant) that in the end regardless of ongoing debates, differences in interpretations, Trinity or not, are still followers of Jesus. shafique
No, your explanation is exactly what I was disagreeing on.
There is dispute amongst scholars of the Bible - not just between religious practioners in different sects.
This actually dates back to the compilation of the Bible with the Arian controversy - just look up Arianism and you will find Arius had a following before and after the compilation of the Bible and that his views were part of Christianity (until some sections decided to outlaw them).

Same can be said about most Christian churches - eg are women priests allowed or not? Is homosexuality allowed or not? Is the Pope the divine representative on earth or not? etc

I was not equating this as scholarly work, I was referring to works of scholars of the Bible and theologians who interpret the meanings of the words of the Bible (what the words mean in terms of Dogma).

Freza - do you really believe there aren't a significant number of Christian sects and that the differences between them are minor?
You seem to ignore all the Orthodox Christians (by characterising Christianity as either Catholic or Protestant).
Are you just referring to your hometown perchance?
Cheers,
Shafique freza that's why I acknowledged that there are mysteries and debates, you did see that? Scholarly disputes are normal. They are part of every major work of literature and important periods of history, I mean, what's new and unusual about scholarly disputes? So there are disputes about the Bible, so what? Like I said, debate is good. Do disputes invalidate the Bible, no I don't think, unless you're a very arrogant person who likes to invalidate history changing works of literature (but surely Shafique, you're not that arrogant hehe)
Some groups allow women priests, some don't. How is this compared to a group that worships Jesus only to completely turn around and change paths or to declare the world would end on more than one occasion? These are just examples, what I'm saying is that people with common sense know what groups have experience in seriously studying the Bible and what groups don't.
Again I mentioned the proliferation of Christian groups, yes there are several emerging groups and they're getting a lot of converts, who is denying this? But the strongest in terms of schools of thought, population, traditions, etc. are the Catholic and Protestants, who can deny this also? I've mentioned the Orthodox in other posts that I didn't mention them in this last one means nothing. Shafique I think sometimes you read too much into some things but not enough into others.. :) shafique
So, the rift between the Eastern Church and Catholicism, the rift between Protestants and Catholics are good natured 'scholarly disputes'?
The early church didn't think so when it executed many thousands for heresy.
I do take exception to being accused of ignoring or re-writing history when I have been citing history in defence of what I see is an obvious fact - there are divisions within Christianity despite having one bible.

But what does the Bible say on the matter? Does it not say women should not even speak in Church?

Sorry Freza, did you not read my reference to Arius?
His group was around +before+ the bible was compiled, so how can this be characterised as 'emerging groups'?
I also disagree that the Catholic/Protestant difference is the biggest in Christianity - I would suggest that it is the difference between the 'Orthodox' Churches of Greece, Russia etc and the Western Church which trace back to Rome.
Cheers,
Shafique freza take exceptions to what I said, could be a good thing actually! :) I'm still your fan!
the rifts between religions are rifts between religions but in these previous lines I'm clearly referring to the validity of viewing the Bible in a scholarly and historical view, without seeing it through a religious affiliation, I only said it oh about three times.
There are division in Christianity, ok, what else is new? I'm not disagreeing with you on this, divisions and differences are there. I guess some people focus on divisions instead of focusing on common ground, well ok then.
When I referred to emerging groups I thought I was clear that I was talking about new groups like those going after the poor in developing countries or appealing through media outlets like some of the newer Evangelical movements.
I was not referring to Arius, but one can hardly consider that breakaway people, groups or doctrines are unique to Christianity.
Also I did NOT say that the Catholic/Protestant difference was the biggest, what I implied is that these groups were the most influential.
I tell you my personal views: that the established religions (in general), and these include established sub-groups, whose aim is to fulfill the spiritual needs of their people are all good. However, I do criticize some sects, cults and politics masquerading as religion, and I do question some aspects of established religions, and criticize certain practices, but that's another issue, that's not the main issue. The main issue for me personally is faith. (I also criticize narrow minded and bitter atheists who try to squash believes that they don't share but surely not all atheists are bitter and narrow-minded and I can't invalidate people that choose not to believe in God). As to established religions, their laws, traditions, beliefs, books, might not be what I personally believe in, they might not be my truths but I don't think this gives me the right to invalidate the truth of others... benwj
I didn't want to use the word western because, as you have pointed out, other cultures have also modified christianity to suit theirs. I would be surprised if a single country influenced by christianity did not develop its own form of the religion.
However, I did have Henry VIII in mind when I made the comment and more recently the multitude of christian religions that have formed in each western country.
Having said that, I still beleive that it would be easier to start a spin off to islam in a western country than an islamic one.

If someone interprets the Quran differently to another, isn't that a contradiction?
Thanks for telling me about the Druze. I might want to convert one day and that is handy to know. valkyrie
Actually, the majority of the NT was already compiled well before the time of Arius. The only exception are the books of Hebrews and Revelation. When Arius tried to use "reason" to say that Christ was NOT the Son of God, he began to preach something new. This was not an ancient strain of Christianity. It was a novelty. So, yes, Christianity has always considered Christ the Son of God. jabbajabba The wide spread practise of Christianity owes a lot to Emperor Constantine more then anyone else. At a time when there was a lot of gods kicking around he saw it as perfect way of ruling with even more power and reach. After that the English took it to whole new level with the crusades. Frederick
Paul was advocating a law that he believed still needed to be applied to the women of the 1st century church.
When you read 1 Corinthians 11, several things come to light. First and foremost, that Paul is not talking culturally, because he is talking to the church at Corinth, a church that was comprised of a variety of different cultures, and religious beliefs prior to conversion. the members of Corinth are coming from all walks of life, and from all different backgrounds.
Next, you find that Paul advocates a head covering, but then later explains that nature has provided a head covering in the form of long hair. Women who wear their hair long do not need to wear a covering, but women with short hair, scripturally, still should.
The OT law does not prescribe hair length as an option. In the OT, they wore veils.

Even if you ignore the abrogation of the old law in the New Testament, the disregard for Jewish law and custom was immediate in the church. The struggle resulted in the Ebionite heresy. The movement however, never reflected a large portion of Christianity and was not long lived. From then on, I can think of no theologian who has ever suggested that Christians are still bound by the old law. The confusion now is not among theologians, but among adherents who are unaware of the theological stands of the bodies of which they are apart. Again, no modern Christian body that I know of still holds that the Law is binding on Christians.
As for a consensus among theologians there has never been one. There wasn\'t a perfect consensus between Peter and Paul, Paul and Barnabas, and on and on. There have however been consistent themes and stances of the church that have not faltered either at all or not until these modern times. So while perfect consensus may not exist, the official stance of the church (by that I mean every movement of any popular force) was, for nearly 1,600 years that all Christians must be baptized. The unbroken stance of the church has been that Christians do not get abortions. And so on...
No perfect consensus exists, but there are long standing, biblically supported stances which may be considered to have the general consensus of Christians now and in history.

Your first statement, that biblical scholars began disputing with Arius is seriously flawed. Theologians began disputing with Paul and Peter. The Bible itself records disputes between the two great apostles. Furthermore, you need to lose the idea that Arianism was some new shockwave to hit the church. Many more serious heresies preceded it. In the middle and late second century, two critical heresies would arise, Montanism and Marcionism. It should be noted that Montanism lasted longer than Arianism did as a major movement in the world. Biblical theologians debated over that. They debated over Sabellianism, which is the opposite of Arianism (though to be accurate, Arianism is the opposite of Sabellianism since the later predates the former by some 150 years). They debated over Monarchianism, Gnosticism, Adoptionism, and Dontaism (which also greatly outlasted Arianism) all before Arius was even a twinkle in his parents eye.
Second, your view of the development of the Bible is sadly two dimensional. It wasn\'t Arianism, but the aforementioned Marcionism that led to the development of the canon. Marcion is the first theologian we know of to declare what constituted the Bible. His bible had a \"butchered\" (to steal Tertullian\'s word) version of Luke and a selection of Pauline epistles in it. It was this rejection of documents key in traditional Christianity that led to \"orthodox\" Christians beginning to formulate the canon. Beginning with Justin Martyr and his disciple Tatian we see the orthodox acceptance of the four gospels and their theological defense of them. As early as 170, there are attempts at Christians to formulate a counter creed to correct Marcion. By the time of Origen, there is a basic consensus on the 27 books of the New Testament. He not only lists them but commentates on authorship and the validity of their general acceptance. You have the same books being used in Rome, North Africa, Alexandria, Antioch, and Gaul with the only exceptions being Revelation and Hebrews which were still contested in places (one or the other, depending on the region). Again, all of this is long before Arius.
Finally, the idea that some sections of Christianity outlawed Arius is ludicrous. The largest of the ecumenical councils of bishops gathered together to outlaw him not very long after his ideas appeared. While Arianism persisted, it wasn\'t because it found great acceptance until the ruthless Nicenes forced them out. You\'ll find that bishops and episcopal legates are deposed, tortured, brought up on false charges, and even murdered by the Arians trying to secure their position. Sozomenus, an ancient church historian, records an incident where the Arian emperor burned a boat in the harbor with 40 Nicenes aboard rather than hear their case.

It is actually the only interpretation offered by theologians. You are simply proof texting and real theology requires more than that. shafique Frederick, Thanks for the interesting post. I'll try and be brief in my reply. Firstly thank you for confirming my reading of Christian history that there has not been consensus on the meaning of the Bible. Concerning Arius - I presented him as an example of a significant difference of interpretation of Biblical teaching that actually took place before, during and after the Council of Nicea when the current Bible was finally canonised (if that is the right term). This was in response to Freza saying there was a consensus in interpretation and that 'sects' within Christianity are a recent phenomenon. I do not think I said Arius was the first to hold different opinions - apologies if I gave this impression. I agree with you characterisation of the teachings of St Paul - it should be read in context and can be subject to interpretation. This goes for the rest of the Bible too - but scholars and theolgians will disagree on what should be sacrosanct and what is subject to interpretation. I totally agree that current dogma is that observing the law is not required for salvation, but my head spins when I listen to the argument that having faith means you will follow the law, and that intentionally not following the law means you don't have faith. Thinking linearly (and mathematically) salvation comes from having faith. Not following God's law is an indication you don't have faith. Therefore to attain salvation you must follow the law (because this is the natural consequence of having faith). Then, however, they say the law isn't binding! If one deliberately chooses to break each law, does one attain salvation ? If the answer is 'yes' - provided you have faith - then the law isn't binding. If the answer is 'no' - because this shows you don't have faith - then I fail to see why the law isn't binding. I've yet to have this explained to me satisfactorily - perhaps you can have a go? Practically, this is no different from the philosophy of Islam (or Judaism for that matter). As for St Paul's instructions to women to cover their hair and not speak in Church - the Bible does not say this is limited to the 1st century, but as you say it has been interpreted this way. Therefore the decision of a reader of the Bible is to decide which verses to follow and which to not. Finally, your last sentence speaks volumes. To me it says that Christianity depends on the interpretation of scholars/priests/theologians - a person picking up the Bible and trying to live their lives by the words of God will not find true salvation and may be totally confused if he only reads the first half of the book! Cheers, Shafique freza I do think there's a consensus in interpretation, there is a lot more common ground amongst established Christians groups than differences. You only seem to focus on differences, you must have your reasons... I stand by the consensus comments but I never said that sects are a recent phenomenon! Surely everyone that is familiar with the history of Judeo-Christianity knows that sects have always been around. I mentioned groups that have sprung up in recent decades, or 100 years or so compared to movements that have been around for two thousand years or so, and I suggested that groups that have been around and studied the Bible for many years (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) might have more of a solid interpretation than groups that don't have much of a history or a willingness to stick to an accurate interpretation... shafique Freza,
You are right - amongst the Christian groups that agree with each other on the interpretation of the Bible, there is consensus.
If you class all the other groups who call themselves Christians, but are called 'heretics' by the others, then you are completely correct.
My mistake was to point out that Christian in-fighting took place before the Bible was compiled - and the disputes were over the interpretation of the Bible. I was finding it difficult to reconcile this historical fact with the statement that there has always been consensus on the interpretation of the Bible.
Have you seen the film 'the life of Brian'? Did you laugh at the scene where they discussed 'what did the Romans ever do for us'?? :)
And, as pointed out by Frederick, you need to consult scholars to decide which verses of the Bible one should follow and which ones you should ignore - for to take the Bible at its word is incorrect.
For me, that sounds like you should follow the word of men rather than the word of God - but I'm approaching it from a Muslim perspective where God's word is clear and sacred. The opening verses of Ch 2 of the Quran are instructive:
This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
Who believe in the unseen and observe prayer and spend out of what We have provided for them.
And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee and they have firm faith in the hereafter.
It is they who follow the guidance from their Lord and it is they who shall prosper.
Those who have disbelieved - it being alike to them whether thou warn them or warn them not - they will not believe.
Allah has set a seal on their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering; and for them is a grievous chastisement.

Cheers,
Shafique valkyrie
I think the problem is selective reading. 8)
slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. -Koran shafique Valkyrie, There's taking a verse out of context or omitting the qualifications (such as 'fight only until injustice stops or the enemy offers truce') and there are verses which theologians say do not apply (abbrogation of verses - such as Leviticus saying it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery). 8) Cheers, Shafique valkyrie
That's one interpretation.

I'm sorry, not sure I read that right. Are you suggesting that the most accurate method would be to blindly ignore the author's intent and instead take everything literally? shafique
Where the author is God and the instruction is clear and without qualification, yes.
Where the 'intent' is someones interpretation and leads to ignoring the literal word of the Bible, then aren't we putting more credence in the opinion of man than in the word of God?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique For Freza - here is a quote from Karen Armstrong's book 'History of God' - Ch 8 (I reached this passage today, and thought I'd post it - she also talks about the other dissensions in the early church, but I think we've addressed those in the previous posts)

Indeed, by the end of the sixteenth century, many people in Europe felt that religion had been gravely discredited. They were disgusted by the
killing of Catholics by Protestants and Protestants by Catholics. Hundreds of people had died as martyrs for holding views that it was impossible to prove one way or the other. Sects preaching a bewildering variety of doctrines that were deemed essential for salvation had proliferated alarmingly. There was now too much theological choice: many felt paralysed and distressed by the variety of religious interpretations on offer. Some may have felt that faith was becoming harder to achieve than ever. It was, therefore, significant that at this point in the history of the Western God, people started spotting 'atheists', who seemed to be as numerous as the 'witches', the old enemies of God and allies of the devil. It was said that these 'atheists' had denied the existence of God, were acquiring converts to their sect and undermining the fabric of society. Yet in fact a full-blown atheism in the sense that we use the word today was impossible. As Lucien Febvre has shown in his classic book The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century, the conceptual difficulties in the way of a complete denial of God's existence at this time were so great as to be insurmountable. From birth and baptism to death and burial in the churchyard, religion dominated the life of every single man and woman.
Hence why I disagreed with the view that there was/is consensus on interpretation of the Bible!
Cheers,
Shafique freza Shafique,
Never seen that movie, will keep it mind.
Not to criticize you, but I do see that you pick things to support your views on this particular matter very selectively like Valk said.
It's no secret that Christianity went through turmoil on many occasions. In fact, it happened right when Christianity was being born, when Jesus was slowly dying on the cross and right after his death his community was left in despair and disoriented, his disciples had to pick themselves up from this sense of despair in a most challenging way, I'm not talking about sense of loss only but a sense of "what do we do now?"
What you quote here is not new to me or contradicts from my views that consensus on interpretation is there. You again focus on religious groups rather than scholarly views. I prefer to see the bigger picture. Christian groups went through trying times, experienced confusion - no doubt. Some contemporary Christian groups still experience confusion - no doubt either. But let us not forget, and I think sometimes you do forget, that all this insanity that Christianity went through was created by men, not by the essence of the teachings of the Bible, which has been studied through hundreds of years of trial and error to achieve a standard of common understanding.
I also see that you compare the Christian holy book with the Islamic holy book and you measure the Bible by what you think it should be according to how Islam views their holy book. Which is an error in itself for several reasons. The most glaring one is that what works for one group might not necessarily work for another and that's perfectly OK, differences don't diminish another group's philosophy and aim - different approaches often lead to the same aim. The Bible is not supposed to be taken as a book authored by God. The Bible is meant to include the words of God of course, "God quotes" if you will, but it was not written by God. Not everything in it are exact "quotes" but rather words inspired by God and then there are the teachings, philosophy, history, poetry, mythology, and prose etc. It is a complex work that I repeat yet once again, should not all be taken literally. To do so is to choose to be misinformed. shafique
With respect, the bit I highlighted talked about the variance of interpretation of the Bible on the point of salvation - and this debate took place within Catholicism and Protestantism. The writer is at pains to point this out.
You on the one hand say Christianity had periods of turmoil - but that this did not amount to variations in interpretation by scholars, but the quote I gave you shows that this was precisely the case, scholars disputed on the meaning of the Bible to the point that there are many sects.
I however agree with you that to reconcile the apparent contradictions in the literal words of the Bible you have to resort to looking for the 'spirit' of the words - but I have been arguing this all along (at least I thought I was). It is in this interpretation that the differences have arisen - including the sects who do not believe in Trinity (for example), which were welcomed as part of the Christian church at the Council of Nicea when the participants debated and selected the books that would make up the Bible.
Cheers
Shafique freza But Shafique, that is not exactly where I think the consensus lies in the history of time. Getting to a correct understanding took time and that's why I previously alluded to this:
There is correct info out there, that some groups choose to not see it or see it only selectively is due to the stubborn nature of mankind, to ambitions to uncover something that's not there, and perhaps the way Christianity is set up to be, the open-ness of it, perhaps its due to the fact that many Christians haven't grown in understanding beyond childhood OT Bible stories, but sadly that's not unique to religion, look at world politics, the truth is out there, sometimes one needs to dig it up but many times it's staring us in the face, yet many choose not to see it.
This entire fixation on differences though, is a distraction to what really matters. Believing or not in trinity doesn't matter, what should matter to Christians is how they lead their lives. shafique
How Christianity teaches people to live their lives is no different from any other religion - for all have the same core teachings, as all ultimately come from the same God. Unfortunately, the history of Christianity is full of some Christians killing others because they have a different interpretation of the Bible - and the same can be said of all other religions too.
Cheers,
Shafique valkyrie
Should we do the same with Shakespeare? Should we ignore the fact that "die" could mean orgasm at the time, and ignore the implications that this changes the entire meaning of certain passages?

How does saying that OT law is completed make it still in effect? Christ didn't destroy the laws, but he did fulfill them, so I don't see how this passage forces a Christian to follow the OT.

Did you omit the part where fighting stops when the enemy's of Islam become Muslims (pay the almss)?
...slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. shafique
If you equate Shakespeare with the Bible, then logically - yes. Are you saying both are fiction? There is a lot of wisdom in Hamlet - Polonius' advice is very good eg 'To thy ownself be true'. However I think the portrayal of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, whilst in parts sympathetic, is ultimately an anti-semitic portrayal (and not to say a travesty of judicial powers in the end!).:)

If the laws weren't destroyed and you still need 'works' on top of faith...
For me the 10 commandments are part of the law - are you saying that these do not need to be followed by Christians?
All Christians I know say that they are still in effect.
Therefore we get back to interpretations of which laws Christians choose to follow and which laws can now be ignored. Which is my point, methinks.

'poor-due' in this case is the tax paid by non-Muslims (jizya) which exempts them from the capital tax payable by Muslims (Zakaat) and also exempts them from any obligation to defend the state - an obligation that Muslims also have.
Therefore by definition, paying the jizya is not forced conversion but rather an indication of cessation of violence and submission to the authority of the Muslims.
It is being deliberately deceiving or mischievous to equate the statement in bold with conversion. I'm discounting ignorance, for I assume you have done some research.
Cheers,
Shafique valkyrie shafique, that's not my interpretation of v9:5, but Ibn Kathir's. I hightlighted that verse because he used it himself. &tid=20750 I have a feeling that if I do more research on this verse, more Islamic scholars would disagree with your interpretation. valkyrie
Christ said the Old Law was fulfilled. What's your definition of fulfill?
Either way, in Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is talking to Jews. According to Judaism, only Jews were required to follow Mosaich law to achieve "salvation." Gentiles, instead had to follow Noachian Law in order to be "saved." Almost all Christians are Gentiles, and therefore exempt from Mosaic Law.
To be honest, I don't know very much about the "works" verse. I'll look that up.

Christians follow what is in the New Testament. Some of the old laws are repeated, but that doesn't mean Christians follow the Old Law.

Is that why Christians are allowed to consume pork and crayfish?

Not sure where you're going with this. Are you saying that you wouldn't need to read the Sunnah alongside the Koran to better understand the context? shafique
Thanks for the link - I didn't recognise that the verse you quoted before was 9.5. The word there isn't jizya - so I was mistaken.
The link also shows what 9.4 and 9.6 say - 9.4 clarifies what 'pagans/unbelievers' this verse refers to (those that broke covenants and were thus traitors to the state, 9.5 says to fight them, 9.6 says that if they seek mercy they should be given protection).
Quoting out of immediate context gives a misleading impression - eg. it would be correct to say that the Quran says 'Do not pray' - but it would be misleading to say this is the message of the Quran for those words are taken out of context and are just part of a longer verse.
That said, this is not interpretation of a verse but just reading a verse in context - the verses still apply, 9.5 and 9.6 says how to deal with the people described in 9.4
Biblical abrogation says that (some) previous laws that were applicable are no longer applicable
Cheers,
Shafique shafique [quote="valkyrie"]
Prophecies in the Old Law that a reformer for the Jews would come and bring Jews back to the core teachings of Judaism were fulfilled.
Jesus said, "Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Mt 5:17)
Jesus went out of his way to say he brought no new law - think not
If a law isn't abolished, isn't it still in effect? What does 'not abolish' mean?

No arguement here - we believe Jesus' message was for the Jews. He was at pains to point this out to the disciples. The expansion of the preaching to non-Jews is where Muslims part company with Christians.

Here is a verse for your reference:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:14-18 ESV)

Are you saying that if some law isn't repeated in the NT it won't be followed by Christians? To your knowledge, are all the 10 commandments, say, repeated in the NT? What about the punishment for homosexuality - stoning I believe - is this repeated? (Genuine questions, for I haven't read the NT with this purpose in mind - to see what laws are applicable or not)

Do you have a different version of the 10 commandments that forbid pork and crayfish? :)

I would read supporting texts to better understand the Quran, yes. But I would reject any text/interpretation that contradicted the Quran or said to do the opposite of what was written. There are clear verses and poetic verses - the Quran itself says so - however the clear verses are there for all to read, quote and act on - all can read in context and the Quran is open for all from beginning to end.
We have sunnah to show how to implement - i.e. how to turn the instructions into practice - eg. how to pray, how to treat family, neighbours, subjects and people in authority, how to conduct matters of state, how to conduct wars and when to stop etc etc. All of the conduct of the Prophet and verses of the Quran are internally consistent.
Who would have thought that an irreverant letter to Bush will lead to such interesting discussions! :)
Cheers,
Shafique freza Most of the bloodshed in the name of Christianity or not even in the name of Christianity but perpetuated by Christians was really about political power struggles, ambition, egos, etc. by men who deliberately (not innocently misinterpreted, but deliberately) chose to ignore and out right twisted what the Bible's central philosophy is. The biggest bloodshed by so called Christians was not against other Christians but rather against the indigenous of the present day Latin Americas; winning converts was last on the agenda, the real aim was conquest, power and acquisitions: gold and land.
Re: Valk's comment on Shakespeare's. He made a good point. If a word of some 400 year old early Modern English can have a completely different meaning in today's Modern English, what can we expect of words written thousands of years ago in an ancient language, written over many years and by several authors? That's were mistakes in interpretation are made, when people read some words in the Bible to interpret them to today's modern meaning without going into analytical context. To go back in history and to understand what certain words meant back then , when the particular passages or letters were written is fundamental.
Re: Matthew 5:17 It is understood that Jesus brought a New Covenant, not to dismiss the old one entirely but to update and seal it, to add new things and do away with others. Jesus' messianic quality is considered crucial in this approach to the of the laws.
the mistake that many make is to view all commands in the OT as law. Not the case. Some were teachings to make a point, some were examples that applied to a particular situation or person. Some were break-able as the Bible states, some were not, etc. Common sense dictates that Jewish specific laws for example, do not apply to Christians. freza oops, double post. shafique
Freza, this is interesting. We must be reading different historical sources. Edward Gibbon's 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' contains some chapters on the early Church and documents the killings of Christians over differences in theology. Similarly the quotation I gave a number of posts ago by Karen Armstrong from 'History of God' talks of killings in the 15th and 16th Centuries.
I fully agree that these killings go against the teachings of Christianity. However, in all the history I've read I've not come across your assertion above that Christian vs Christian violence was not down to differences in theology.

You may be right. Killings took place on all continents by Christians - Africa, Asia, Australasia as well as the Americas. However, I was talking about the theological differences that led to bloodshed - Gibbon's accounts show that Christians suffered more at the hands of other Christians than at the hands of the Romans (which contradicts official church 'history')

The 10 commandments are as fresh today as they were 3000+ years ago.
In fact, by arguing that you need external scholars to understand the Bible and choose which of the commandments to follow you are making my point for me.

I know 'it is understood' that way, but unfortunately that is not what he said - how do you understand the words 'not abolish'?

Again, you make my point for me - men have to tell you and me which of the OT commands should be followed and should not be followed. We cannot trust the Bible itself.
Also, common sense would dictate that if (as you believe) God in the form of man followed the laws of Judaism, then this should be the best example for mere mortals. We believe prophets show people how to live and worship by example - but Christians decide not to follow the practice of Jesus and be circumcised, not eat pork etc. Jesus taught you how to pray in the Bible - he said to pray to 'our father' and not to pray to him, he prostrated himself before God (as Muslims and many Eastern Christians still do). Why is not the religion that was good enough for the Son of Man good enough for the rest of us?
I believe in following the teachings and practice of Jesus - and believe him to be an exemplary worshipper of God and also the Messiah for the Jews.
Cheers,
Shafique arniegang Shaf excuse my ignorance but i thought Moses was the Jewish "top man". Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, so does that make the fact you consider him the "messiah" for the Jews a contradictory statement in relation the the Jewish/Arab issue? :? shafique
Arnie - that isn't a silly question.
Moses was the law bringer - he fought wars and led the Jewish tribes out of Egypt. God gave Moses the 10 commandments, and the first books of the OT were revealed to Moses. He is therefore the 'top man' as you say.
However, the scripture also said that there would be a Messiah sent by God to the Jews when they would be weak and under the cosh, as it were. The messiah would be preceeded by the return of Elijah who was taken up to heaven in a chariot (and is alive in heaven, therefore). When the messiah would come, he would restore the kingdom of israel back to the Jews. The messiah would come when the Jews had lost their way and corruption had settled into their religion.
Both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus was this Messiah - this is what Jesus claimed. Many Jews accepted him, but the majority did not (and to this day deny him). They do not accept the metaphorical fulfilment of the return of Elijah (in the form of John the Baptist) and do not accept the metaphorical fulfilment of the prophecies that the Messiah will fight and restore power to the Jews.
Jews reject Jesus as the messiah and are still waiting for the Messiah to come.
Thus Muslims and Christians believe in Jesus as truthful in his claims. Christians and Muslims differ on the further interpretation that Jesus' message was also applicable to non-Jews. Before the crucifixion, Jesus only preached to Jews and asked his disciples to do the same. There was the odd interaction with 'gentiles' but the clear instruction was that he was the Messiah for the Jews eg. he said 'I have come unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel' ; 'Do not throw pearls before swine' etc
Christians believe that Jesus was more than the messiah, Muslims believe he was the Messiah and no more.
In terms of Jewish views of Jesus - they view him as an imposter who died an accursed death (and therefore could not have been the true Messiah - for a beloved of God would not be cursed by God).
I hope I've not confused further :)
Cheers,
Shafique freza I think in this case you read history that conforms to your pre-determined thoughts on this particular subject. Gibbon's was not neutral in his views on Christianity, his bias should be no secret to anyone and it surely influenced his writings. But this doesn't mean that biased views should be discounted altogether though. But biased views should be balanced with other views for a clear picture and it doesn't seem apparent that you balance the material that you extract to support your views with material and views that don't. If you look at the history of violence of Christian groups when they were persecuting each other there was corruption involved, political corruption and political motivations back when there was little or no separation of Religion and State. Some killings of Christian over different theologies, might have been exclusively over doctrine but that's not the bigger picture of conflict and violence in Christianity and to exclude any other reasons behind this occurrence would be very short-sighted.
Lots of Christians suffered in Christian-Christian infighting but many more people of whatever creed or lack of creed suffered at the hands of the Roman empire in general and many more Non-Christians suffered at the hands of Christians. Entire generations of indigenous people were wiped out, entire tribes, languages, customs, history were decimated and this was not over theological disputes, this was over power. What did Gibbons write about the New World...? :-)
(edit: I lmistakenly eft out this reply to your previous statements [re: Matthew 5:17] on my post, I'm including it now:)You misunderstand the laws Jesus talking about as you insist on taking everything on face value and without any profound examination. Why would Jesus fulfill laws that have already been fulfilled??? Does not make sense. Jesus alludes to the Kingdom of God on many occasions, alludes to a New Advent. It is clear that Jesus fulfilled laws of the New Covenant which was not to be abolished, which would be everlasting as life after death in salvation is ever lasting. Ask yourself, was the New Covenant fulfilled in the OT? Well NO it wasn't, how/when should it be fulfilled if not by Jesus and if not in the NT?
And you make my point too you are a perfect example of why interpretation and study of the Bible in semantic, historical and philosophical aspects is so crucial, otherwise there are a people and groups that interpret it to fit their agenda, pre-determined views, etc. without fully understanding it, kinda like what you're doing now.
Some of the OT laws are common sense, some need interpreting, not unusual, not unique and not a big deal at all.
Again, New Covenant, New (revolutionary at that time) philosophy, new direction. Was Jesus a Jew like all other Jews of his time? Well in some aspects he was but in others very significant ways he differed greatly! He equated himself to God, something that was taken as blasphemy by Jews. He challenged Jewish societal views and traditions. He stated his "good news" to be all encompassing , not the exclusive gift to Jews.
Circumcision was abandoned when it became clear that the disciples of Jesus were following a different philosophy from traditional Judaism and that some Jews were not followers of this philosophy. Prostrating before God is still practiced by some Christians in certain rituals btw, it has more to do with tradition than anything else but it's one of those things that in the end don't matter except for those that stubbornly want it to matter for whatever personal reason. shafique Freza - many thanks for your post, it captures the views of many Christians very well. Your views about Gibbon are at odds with all current Biblical scholars who do agree that his accounts of historical events is correct. He actually did not start off critical of Christianity, but became disillusioned when he found that history was at odds with official church history of the time. You call me biased. I gave you my sources. Can you please refer me to the 'unbiased' accounts of the early Church that correct what Gibbon wrote. I will take a dim view if your accusation of bias is based on what you learnt in Sunday school. Many Christians I have debated with are unaware of the details of the history of the church, the violence between christians, the compilation of the Bible, the contradictions in the Bible etc. What is taught in Sunday school etc is that the whole Bible is the word of God and that Christians have got along with everyone, Jesus always said he was Son of God etc. However, the fact the Bible and History tell a different story is glossed over - and when it is brought up we have logic gymnastics that ask us to ignore the written word and think about the 'spirit' of the teachings of St Paul. Jesus said 'Do not cast pearls before swine' to emphasise that his message was only for Jews. Later St Paul, we believe, changed Jesus' message and marketed the religion to non-Jews. Anyway, thank you again for your post - this has been a very informative thread. Hopefully it will stimulate some to question both our views and perhaps make up their own minds about the History of the Church, Christian dogma based on their own research. Cheers, Shafique arniegang thanks Shaf for taking the time to explain - appreciated. If Muslims/Islam consider Jesus a Messiah, why does Islam put Mohammed on such a pedestal?. Surely if they were both sent by God they should have equal status. In your explanation would you say it is because Jesus's only purpose was to represent the Jews, and therefore Islam discriminates because of this? freza Shafique,
I think you choose your sources to support your biased views on this particular subject, yes I stand by this and frankly I can see that you do not have a profound understanding of the Bible. If you had a better understanding you would not be getting very basic but important beliefs and verses completely wrong. Questioning things is everybody's right but to uncompromisingly push ideas that are not based on study and true understanding and are not supported by a theological majority is not cool. The Bible according to Shafique is not the Bible according to serious historians, theologians, scholars, philosophers, saints, linguists and hundreds of years of experience in the study of the Bible. You might want to support your views by arguing that Christian groups are very divided but you do so while very obviously ignoring the fact that established Christian groups have a lot more in common with each other than in disagreement. To see yourself enlightened to the truth, while considering the Bible to be wrong or misread, in these circumstances, is quiet arrogant I think. You're at liberty to opinion, disagree, not believe, critique, but I don't think it's your place to attempt to discredit established beliefs of others on the basis of your elementary understanding of said beliefs, or on the basis of what you think others should believe in according to your established beliefs.
I suggest that you stop debating with Christians that don't know their history and don't know the basics of the Bible! That's if you truly (which I doubt) want some understanding of the Bible. :-) What can you get from someone's ignorance except fodder to judge and criticize Christians even more? Or maybe that's the point? There are many ignorant Christians out there. But there are enlightened ones too. Perhaps you should approach a theologian if you're truly interested in this subject...

Wow. What an interpretation and assessment! This verse is an advise on discernment and makes more sense if read from 7:1, "only for Jews???" Jesus who was known for excluding no one, for embracing outcasts and rebels and all those who didn't conform or belong, for saying that his kingdom welcomes all, he is known for the universality of his doctrine. "only for Jews"? ahhh, Nope!
If I sounded sarcastic and rude at times, it wasn't my aim. I'm just stating things plainly as I see them, without any disrespect really. I agree this has been an informative thread, I enjoyed it. I know you're an intelligent guy who discusses issues very well and I've agreed with many of your past posts but in this discussion I see an "I hold the truth and you don't" ego-tinged vibe. btw, I do appreciate your passive-aggressive Sunday school comment, very funny, but allow me the arrogance to state that it certainly doesn't apply to me. shafique
Muhammad is considered to be the 'seal of the prophets' because he brought the final law that was the culmination of all the previous religions. He also exemplified in his life how to live this law.
Muslims are not allowed to discriminate amongst prophets and hold all in equal esteem in terms of authenticity, morals etc. However they have different ranks depending on what mission they were sent on - Jesus was the Messiah for the Jews, Moses was the law bringer for the Jews, Krishna was a prophet to Indians, Gautama Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucious all prophets for their people.
In the past physical communication was only possible in a small geographical area in one person's lifetime. This was down to limitations in transport and communication - as well as limitations in record keeping. Thus Moses is clearly only a prophet for the Jews - he does not preach to the Egyptians, Canaanites etc.
I have read the Bible and paid attention to what Jesus said - I had a bible with red lettering for all quotes from Jesus directly - and I consider myself a follower of the same basic religion Jesus taught and take his words of a future messenger/message/religion that was to come after him seriously.
For example Jesus said:
"But now I go my way to Him that sent me and none of you asketh me, 'Wither goest thou?' But because I have said these things unto you sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and approve righteousness and judgement" ----- John 16:5-8
"But the Spirit of Truth/Comforter, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your “remembrance”, whatsoever I have said unto you."—John 14:26.
Muslims believe these verses relate to Muhammad (as well as Deuteronomy 18.18 ) - whilst Christians believe that the 'comforter' is the Holy Spirit (but as the Holy Spirit was around when Jesus said John 16:5-8 , we find it hard to reconcile the words that Jesus has to leave before the comforter can come with the interpretation that the comforter is the Holy Spirit).
Here endeth the lesson
8)
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Freza, I searched in vain in your post for a reference to a 'serious Biblical scholar' that would correct the historical events described by Gibbon.
Edit: Here is one reference that agrees with Gibbons account:
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. IV, eds. S.M. Jackson, et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1952), 483-484. online.
Edit II: Here is Gibbon's own defence against his critics:
I think my understanding of Christian theology is better than average. I think it is a bit arrogant to think one's interpretation is the only one that is valid, and was it not you a few posts ago that said 'Trinity is not important' to Christians! I have not been arguing that +my+ interpretation is right, but pointing out that Christians have many interpretations, and my one (I consider) is equally valid.
Let me ask you a simple question - do you believe every word of the Bible is the word of God and therefore the truth?
Cheers,
Shafique St.Lucifer Let me interpret it this way. I started programming with C++ and then learned that a new powerful language Java has come up, then came Microsoft .Net. Then .net 2.0 and now even .net 3.0 They all follow Object Oriented principles. However their versions are different, syntaxes are different. Still if u've learnt one you can have an pretty good understanding of others. It doesnt make sense for a Java developer to follow .net just because its new. He / She would like to think they can do what ever is done by a .net programmer in java.. and at an architect's level all languages are powerful in their own ways and the language in itself is of less importance but its the concept thats important.. Languages = Religions Architects = A good practitioner of religion. OO Concepts = Underlying principles of any religion this is an easier for me to interpret. shafique
A good analogy.
However, I would say a better analogy would be to view religions as applications built using the various languages. At the core of each application is a language that does what it is intended and fits the hardware of the time.
As hardware evolves, you can use the old languages and get similar results - but to use a language that is optimised for the new hardware is better.
You will have people that are happy with their mainframe applications that use punch cards, but others are happier with the latest all-singing all-dancing programmes.
One shouldn't 'dis' those ol' timers who insist on using old languages and are satisfied that the code and application meets their needs. However, similarly one shouldn't hold people back from moving on to the latest language either.. :)
Variations within the family of OOO would represent different schools of thought within a religion.
Cheers,
Shafique arniegang Thanks Shaf again for taking the time and trouble to explain LA Shaf you should run for president. jabbajabba
I code embedded assembly so that must make me the universes '63 72 65 61 74 6f 72' shafique
Next you'll be telling us 1 + 1 = 10
(That's the extent of my programming language jokes knowledge!
:cry: ) freza Re: your obsession with Gibbon. If you go search to past posts you will see that I mention that while some conflicts between earlier Christian group might have been exclusively over theological disputes between them, I do not think all Christian violence was solely about interpretation disputes. Do you?
let me know the specific episodes of violence you're referring to that were only about religious differences and nothing else before I post references. I'm wondering if you're including the Crusades and the Inquisition in these historical events that you're fixated on?
Were the Crusades not a series of military attacks, a power and land grab as well as a (twisted) religious exercise to thwart Islam?
Was the Inquisition exclusively about saving souls? Exclusively about religion? Toby Green (History of the Inquisition) writes interesting things about Christian violence, and points out that the political motivations were intrinsic part of it. For example: " Yet studying the Inquisition of Portugal and Spain, far from being a reprise of the anti-Catholic propaganda of the past, can help to distinguish between the best and the worst of religion. For the worst excesses of the Inquisition in Portugal and Spain were always sanctioned by a secular drive to power rather than by religion. "
! Why do you get the NT so completely wrong then? sorry but I disagree with your self-assessment as I see no such understanding. To read the Bible is one thing, to understand it is something else entirely.Yes, I agree! I think you fall into this arrogant category though... A few posts ago I said that I think all established Christian groups despite their differences as well as all established religions have their own validity and truth, but that their truth does not always apply to all.Yes I did say this, because what shall the Christians that aren't trinitarian supposed to be? Non-Christians? I don't think so. Christians are people that follow Jesus and his teachings and consider him their Saviour, this is the core of their beliefs. To not embrace something like Trinity and to go against the core of a belief system are two very different things! OK, there's interpretation and there's mis-interpretation. Misinterpretation occurs when there's no profound understanding of the Bible and people who don't do proper research will most likely misunderstand or get it wrong altogether. What then is the point of a religious group if there is no central belief system? There must be a commonality or else the overall Truth crumbles. If you compare notes of established Christian groups discussing the NT you will see a lot of this commonality, you will see more commonality than differences. There are differences in traditions and certain doctrines and there's outright lack of understanding of the subject matter.*sigh* I addressed this before but I think you weren't paying attention. (see the bit about truth above) Some Christians say that the Bible is the word of God (in general). I do believe that the Bible contains God quotes, then there are Jesus' words: to many God's own words. Words inspired by the Holy Spirit or by God, sure. But not everything written on it are the exact words from God. Inspirations, quotes, teachings: yes, but everything in the Bible are God's words? No. There are also stories, myth, poetry, history, things that could be relevant to a wide range of people - from those humble and simple people that understood stories better than theology, to those that wanted/want a deeper understanding of the Bible, to those that just see the Bible as a historical and literature work and nothing else. shafique
Please don't change the goal posts.
You are now saying that not all killings of Christians by Christians was over differences in theology. Ok, I guess this is progress.

Sorry, you said I was biased and had views on Christian history contrary to 'serious scholars'. When you can substantiate this, or withdraw this, then perhaps we can move on to what I may or may not be fixated on.
I have not mentioned the crusades in this thread. If you want to discuss this, I'm happy to start a new thread.

That Christian violence goes against Christianity is without question. However the targets of Christian violence were those who had different interpretations of the Bible - if they weren't members of different sects, they wouldn't have fought each other.

I think we discussed this before - you say that the Bible needs to be interpreted by men and we cannot trust what the words in the Bible actually say. 'Die' may not mean 'to lose one's life, to pass away' but may mean something else. Some laws should be followed, some laws shouldn't.
I repeat, our difference is that you insist there is a consensus of interpretation amonst Christians despite the multitude of sects - and you insist that the violence and virulent episodes over interpretations of the Bible did not actually take place (or have you softened this stance now and are saying that +some+ religious violence did take place? ).
I have not insisted that my view that God's word should be taken at face value and God would not say do something only for men later to say 'God didn't really mean this'. I would not insist on this, for I know that this is exactly the stance of most (but not all) Christians.
I have not likened Jehova's Witnesses with Scientologists, or called them a cult - you have. In a way, you have demonstrated the intolerance towards differing views of the Bible which characterised the violence I have been referring to.
I still await a reference to back up your statements that Gibbon's historical descriptions of Christian on Christian violence (in the early Church - way before the inquisition) is factually incorrect. I have given you references from serious historians and theologians that agree with his historical accounts (Gibbon, after all, went back to primary and secondary sources - quoted them and uncovered facts which were at odds with official Church history - and for this he was criticised)
And thanks for clarifying that you do not believe all the words of the Bible are the truth. This is accordance with my research too - the presence of contradictions shows that some verses are fabrications (on top of well known additions, such as Mark 16).
This means the Bible needs interpretation and external sources to decide which verses one chooses to follow. This fact has led to the division and not this consensus you keep referring to.
Cheers,
Shafique freza **wow! this is so wrong :D it's almost funny! Here's what I wrote on a Feb. 5 post: I didn't change the "goal post" How is what I wrote BEFORE suddenly different now? ahh it ISN'T, ((hello)) I'm sorry but you made a very immature and erroneous accusation. Leave the immaturity to me ! Also if you notice that I wasn't exactly sure what periods of violence you were talking about. Now you've said it's pre-inquisition. OK, now can you be even more specific? Seriously, if you want me to post refrences you should be able to be specific about your fixations I mean, about the early Christian on Christian violence. (You talking about when Christians were still considered a Jewish sect perhaps?) umm WRONG! geesh Shafique, you're on a roll of misquotes and wrongness aren't you? do not put words in my fingertips, I did not say that we cannot trust the words in the Bible. On the contrary, they hold the truth for Christians! What cannot be trusted is men MISinterpreting the Bible to meet their agenda. The Bible is a complex 3-dimensional ancient book, it needs to be interpreted correctly! Some things in it are obvious some not, hence the not obvious parts need to be interpreted CORRECTLY. duhAnd this is wrong because? This matters to you because? You're the authority on how religions that are not your own should handle their book, how? The different groups of Christians follow Jesus. They don't follow Xenu. They might have different traditions and some different approaches but they have things in common, and a common aim, like the most important things in common, can you dig it? Or is it one of those things that you just can't understand/accept?oh I stand by this. I know the difference between a cult and a serious religion. Do you??? Oh, now you're accusing me of being a violent intolerant?? hahaha, Shafique, it's not my fault that you don't know how to take criticism well and that your ego or whatever it is that clouds your rationale in this issue doesn't allow you to admit that you don't know everything about this particular religion. But you're right, I'm not a very tolerant person sometimes (many times :oops: ), darn, that means I will go to hell? :D I wish I could be as tolerant as those people who are in turn tolerant of other people's religious philosophy and belief system, you know kinda like you. You are one non-stubborn, clear-minded, open-minded, extremely tolerant guy! You're welcome. Your fabricated (irony lost on you) research is the bomb, I think you should publish it and start a different Christian sect, one that holds the ultimate truth. :-) you still don't get "a lot more in common than differences" "More consensus than discord" you don't get something so simple? Then you see what you want obviously...
I don't know about you but I really don't have unlimited time for this discussion. I'm a nerd but I also have work and a life (ok, maybe not much of a life but... :-)) Why not cut to the chase and state how you and your faith are the holder of all truths. You know, be your tolerant and non-arrogant self. :-) (don't get mad!) *PEACE out* shafique Freza, I give in and accept you are right - as you say "the Bible needs to be interpreted correctly". I apologise for having the audacity to quote historians who have a different view from yours. I also apologise for not registering that you did agree Christians killed each other differences in theology, but that in your opinion the majority of the killings were over other things and the differences in theology were inconsequential in these acts of violence. I had not seen a table showing the numbers of deaths under each, so you may be right. I apologise for not having the correct interpretation of the Bible and being simple enough to quote the Bible verbatim without first checking with your experts. You say irony is lost on me - thanks for bringing this to my attention as well. Cheers, Shafique valkyrie
Shafique, do you realize that the OT prophecies mention the messiah bringing a new covenant with him, for both Jews and Gentiles? shafique
No, I wasn't aware that the OT promised a Messiah that would bring a new law for the Jews and Gentiles.
Is this what the Jews believe? Was Jesus aware of this when he said "I have come unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Cheers,
Shafique Frederick The New Covenant is referenced in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 31:31-32:

Jesus then institutes the New Covenant at the Last Supper (see Luke 22:20).
You will never see the Old Testament talk about the New Covenant abrogating the law, but that is because it is the direct logical outcome. It is what is being explained in the verse in Hebrews that I keep referencing.

The purpose of establishing a New Covenant is necessarily to replace the Old. God says the New Covenant will be unlike the Old, which is obviously the case with the Christian covenant. But for the new system to be in place, the old one must necessarily "disappear."
As for messianic prophecy including Gentiles, note this well recognized messianic prophecy about beating swords into plowshares is immediately preceded by nations/gentiles (the words are synonymous both in Hebrew thought and Greek language) streaming to the mountain of the Lord for his teachings:
Frederick
I should hope they wouldn't need to, but there would be no shame and, dare I say it, benefit in doing so. Doctrine has always been taught (hence why it is a derivative of the Latin word for teaching). As Origen might put it, there is a sufficient knowledge that may be gleaned by all people from the honest investigation of Scripture for living as a Christian, but for the deeper issues of faith and theology, one must learned to understand and to teach that to others.

Consider leprosy as an example of the relationship between faith and works. To have leprosy is to be infected with the bacteria mycobacterium leprae. To the naked eye, this is invisible. You could not tell by looking at someone that the bacteria was inside them attacking their nerve endings. You would be able to tell by the manifested outward symptoms. In the same way that legions are a proof of genuine infection in leprosy, so works are a sign of genuine faith in Christians. It would mean nothing to be a leper who never had a symptom much like it would be nothing to be a Christian who ignored the moral prescripts of God. shafique Frederick, Would it be fair to say that Jewish scholars do not agree that the messianic prophecies foretell of a new law that will apply to Gentiles? I have heard Christians argue that 'nations' apply to the tribes of Israel - such as the references to the gathering of peoples during festivals and the speakings in tongue - I seem to recall that the speaking in tongues took place amongst Jewish peoples. Also, the disciples of Jesus were initially sceptical about taking the message of Jesus to Gentiles - as these people lived with Jesus, I would trust their judgment about Jesus' mission above the interpretation of Paul who was not a disciple and arguably never met Jesus. Finally, I agree that Christians do not see anything wrong in requiring external sources of information to interpret the Bible where the literal words of the Bible (seemingly) contradict/go against Christian dogma. Cheers, Shafique shafique
However, Jesus' words are clear that one can have faith and not do works - and in that case the 'faith' is dead.
To me that indicates that just to 'believe' is not enough - if one believes and continues to sin, one will not achieve salvation. This is logical, and appears to be what Jesus was saying.
Muslims believe you need both faith and good works, which seems to be in accordance with Jesus' teachings.
Your last sentence reads to me 'Believing that Christ is your saviour will not guarantee salvation unless that belief also manifests itself as following the laws (moral prescripts) of God - i.e. if one does not follow the laws (i.e. sins) then it is a demonstration of lack of true faith.
Therefore true faith means one follows the laws of God and does not sin. This is a central precept of Islam - the religion of Abraham onwards.
Cheers,
Shafique Frederick
All I can tell you is that it is from the Jewish canonical corpus. If they don't believe it refers to God being all people under him, then I'm unsure as to how they might interpret it. The whole passage is an idyllic scene of peace at the end of time. I would assume only the most exclusivistic Jews (in the sense of potential salvation) would disregard the plain sense of this passage.

The word nations is synonymous in both Hebrew thought and the English language with Gentiles. I said that already, but I'll expand here if you like.
The Jewish view is one that is fundamentally us against them. In Jewish thought they are the people of God and everyone is lumped into the general category of "everyone else." Hebrew developed a specialized terminology for their circumstance as do all culturally specific languages (think of the number of Inuit words for "ice.") They have a specific, specialized word to refer to the tribes.
"Gentile" which is fundamentally a Jewish concept comes into the Greek as genos. (You'll see the resemblence...it's where we get our world "Gentile.") It didn't translate into the language this way because it was the Greek word for Gentile and the Jews decided to use it. When the Jews began converting to stronger Greek usage, genos, the greek word meaning nation, embodied the Jewish idea of the Gentiles.
When you read "nations" in the Old or New Testament, you can essentially always substitute Gentiles. We see Gentile as a specialized term, but in reality it is just the translitartion of the Greek word to describe the Jewish idea of what a nation was. Those not part of Israel.

Is your assumption then that Luke made up his accounts of Peter preaching to the gentiles and abrogating the cleanliness laws? If it was Paul, how did not the Christianity of the 12 other apostles supercede it? You're theory springs out of pop-culture views of the history of Christianity.

Well, for starters, "works" are not "the law." "Works" are simply the expected reflection of righteousness in the day to day life of the believer. Note the examples of "works" that James uses in his epistle. They are not conformance to dietary restrictions, or prescribed clothing, or specific rituals of cleansing or prayer. They are instead acts of love and kindness such as clothing and feeding the poor. They are not conformance to law, but they are personal demonstrations of the core Christian values of faith, hope, charity and love.
James in this epistle is not disagreeing that it is faith in the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus that is the basis of salvation for Christians. He simply making the common sense observation that such faith should be expected to be reflected in behavior. He is challenging the absurdity that a person who does not reflect these values in his or her day actions truly possesses the faith that it reflects.
In other words, James is not saying that it is through works that one achieves salvation. He is saying the exact causal opposite; i.e. that good works are the inevitable behavior of a person who is already truly saved. shafique
Muslims have another interpretation - that there are prophecies of a reformer of Judaism - fulfilled in Jesus - and of a new universal law which was fulfilled in Islam. It comes down to the interpretation of the Bible.


Let me look into this - you may be right, I'm not sure - the verse that springs to mind is God's promise to Abraham to make Ishmael's progeny into a great nation. The other instance I referred to before in terms of the speaking of tongues after the crucifixion - when 'nations' gathered in Jerusalem for passover (however, I need to look up the references - and you are quite right we should go back to the Hebrew words.
Ironically, in the past I've been exploring whether references to 'nations'/'brethren' may not just apply to Jews (hence why my previous
post was worded in the way it was - as a question)


Is your assumption then that Luke made up his accounts of Peter preaching to the gentiles and abrogating the cleanliness laws? If it was Paul, how did not the Christianity of the 12 other apostles supercede it? You're theory springs out of pop-culture views of the history of Christianity.

Our assumption is that accounts which contradict what Jesus taught may be among the verses of the Bible that were fabricated - or among the verses requiring interpretation. Luke, the author of the Gospel, is accepted by many scholars as not the disciple Luke.
The fact is that the accounts do show Peter sceptical of Paul's view to preach to Gentiles, but then sees a vision and changes his view. He then does preach to Gentiles.
Therefore, I do not think it is a fabrication in this case - but a case of Paul's persuasive teachings of how to save the teachings of Jesus. The Gospels show that the disciples were far from infallible - one was a traitor, the others failed to stay up at night and pray, and all ran away and hid when he was arrested. So Peter succumbing to Paul's message may also be a mistake.

The interpretation of this verse and the logic behind it requires it's own thread :)
Christians tell me that breaking God's laws is equal to 'not doing good works'. Therefore not following the 'moral code' 'god's law' is a sign that one does not have 'true' faith.
My understanding of the theology therefore is that 'true faith' means one has belief and naturally does the good work as a consequence. Not doing good works indicates one does not have true faith.
Normally, Christians agree with me up to this point.
The problem comes when we try and interpret what 'faith without works' means - is it an oxymoron, or is it possible to believe Jesus is a savior and not do good works?
As I said before, faith and works going hand in hand is what Islam and all other religions teach. It is a sign of commonality, I would suggest. However, a good friend of mine insists that Christianity is different on this point and refuses to accept the similarity.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Frederick, I did a search for 'nation' in the Bible. In the first hundred or so references in the OT, I agree it is used for Jewish and non-Jewish peoples. I also looked up the references of Isiah and Micah where the prophecy of a law bringer in the latter days will come and will judge between nations. I understand that this may be interpreted as what will happen after the second coming of Jesus (the latter days). However, could you get me the references that say the messiah will bring a law for all nations. The reference to Jeremiah about a new covenant is explicitly saying the covenant will be with the Israelites. Isiah and Micah are talking about the latter days (and from a Muslim perspective we would argue can also refer to Islam) - whereas I understood that the Jews had specific prophecies about what the Messiah would do when he came (eg he would come after Elijah physically descended from heaven, would fight the oppressors etc - I know the disciples asked Jesus about these prophecies and he explained how they were fulfilled metaphorically and not literally). Cheers, Shafique freza on the subject of infallibility, interesting how the Quran's infallibility has certainly been questioned, especially with this oldest of Qurans. shafique
Valkyrie raised this on the second page of this thread. I am happy to discuss this and started a thread on the Quran to discuss whether the Quran has been corrupted or contains contradictions.
The Sana'a manuscript is nothing new - the history of the compilation of the Quran records that phonetically different versions of the Quran were available (in different Arabic dialects), but they were different pronuciations of the same underlying words.
The Quran claims to be protected by God and claims to be pure (i.e. has not had any additions/deletions) - no challenge to this claim has been made by any (sorry to borrow a phrase of yours) 'serious scholar'. :)
And finally, I think you may mean a different word than 'infallibility'.
Cheers,
Shafique freza sorry, I missed Valk's thread.
However the article suggests more than dialectic differences. In the article Andrew Rippin is quoted:
" Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed. "
Also, the article touches on the Quran's incomprehensibility, confusing words, and a history which included different schools of thought within Islamic theology...
Yes I think it would be interesting to compare the inconsistencies, additions, fabrications, etc. that are being attributed to the Bible with those that are attributed to the Quran. here are some points that are commonly brought up from a Christian perspective (which might not represent the views of all skeptics but it's still worth looking into I think): shafique Freza, I have already started a thread to discuss whether there are any contradictions in the Quran. Happy to discuss any specific instance you may wish to bring up - I have answered all the ones brought up there so far. If you want to compare the Bible with the Quran, we can do that as well. The Quran is written in clear Arabic, so is only confusing if you don't understand Arabic. Arabic itself is unique in as much as it is the only language that more people speak and understand today than say 1500 years ago. So I'm a little surprised at your comments about the incomprehensibility of the Quran - what particular verses are you having a problem with? Cheers, Shafique freza Shafique, if you read the article you would see that I was paraphrasing what is stated there and what is stated some observations of the Quran. And again it is a bit obvious that the experts are referring to more than different dialects.
The other link cites the same things that the article states but also includes historical inconsistencies, illogical phrases, 3rd person accounts, etc.. Also, can you please address the actual Islamic theological disputes that are also mentioned in the article. There is too much to quote that is why I encourage you to read the entire article if you haven't done so already. But this caught my eye in particular:
" A major theological debate in fact arose within Islam in the late eighth century, pitting those who believed in the Koran as the "uncreated" and eternal Word of God against those who believed in it as created in time, like anything that isn't God himself. Under the Caliph al-Ma'mun (813-833) this latter view briefly became orthodox doctrine. It was supported by several schools of thought, including an influential one known as Mu'tazilism, that developed a complex theology based partly on a metaphorical rather than simply literal understanding of the Koran. "
this caught my eye because it seems that there was some difference in opinion on how to....dare I say...interpret or view the Quran. shafique I'll start new thread to discuss the Quranic integrity vs that of the Bible - comparing and contrasting. Cheers, Shafique valkyrie
I came across these while rereading the NT.
Jesus said: Mark 13:10
There is also a parallel verse in Matthew 24:14 that says:
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
According to Jesus' own words, he explicitly says to preach the 'Good News' to all people. This is what freza said previously, but you did not pick up on.

Well, if you want to know Jesus' own words, the greatest law for Christians to follow is to: Love your God, and to love your neighbor. The 10 commandments are reaffirmed in the NT, but the NT isn't a legal document like the Koran and OT. I am troubled by your understanding and knowledge of the NT when you asked me if there was a law to stone gays. There are no prescriptions for Christians in the NT to punish 'sinners.' As far as I know (and I could be wrong here) Paul advises Christians not to eat at the same table as practicing homosexuals. shafique Mark 13 is about the latter days - what will happen after Jesus has gone. Muslims believe this refers to the state of the world after Islam and the need for the Messiah in the latter days (the second coming):
The verses in context:
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"
5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
9"You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
This is what Jesus said according to the Gospel of Matthew:
Matthew 10:5-7 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: " Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'
Matthew 15:23-25 (New International Version)
23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
Now whilst Jesus did advise the woman, the Bible is clear that preaching before the crucifixion was only to the Jews - but please correct me if I have misunderstood.
It appears to me that Jesus clearly instructed that he was the Messiah for the Jews and that the disciples should only preach to the Jews. This instruction was later modified.
Muslims believe that the extension of the message to Gentiles was under the influence of Paul.
On the question of stoning of homosexuals - it was in the context of which laws laid down in the OT are still applicable according to Christians. Some Christians do believe this punishment still applies (as do the other laws about murders, stealing etc), others believe that gays can participate in the church as long as they don't practice.
I've read that the list of laws in the NT is not exhaustive - in that if a OT law is not explicitly repeated in the OT, then Christians do not necessarily believe it does not apply (i.e. it can still apply, even though it is not in the NT).
Christian theology says that following laws is not necessary for salvation (glossing over the 'faith is dead' argument) - but I understand that Christians still believe that God's laws need to be followed and that there are punishments that should still apply to people who break the laws. There are a few I have met who do think we should forgive everyone, including rapists and murderers - but they stop short of saying this should be the law of the land because not everyone is Christian yet.
So, my understanding is that Christians still believe that punishments laid down by God for some crimes still apply - eg. the majority of US Christians believe that the death penalty is part of God's law.
Again, if my knowledge (largely gained from the media in respect of US support for the death penalty) needs correcting, please let me know and give me the references to look this up.
Cheers,
Shafique freza I think the issue of the "universality" of the Bible has been discussed here several times. God is merciful to all, God knows the true nature of people's heart, he is a father who disapproves at times and admonishes but regardless he loves ALL of his children no matter what - salvation is for everyone. Re: Matthew 10:5 - no where does it say that Jesus wanted *only* the Jews to be preached to. What this particular verse in this particular context states is Jesus giving practical INSTRUCTIONS to his followers for the aim of a bigger plan. he instructs his apostles to start on their mission and where are they to start on a mission if not on the immediate area, if not with the people that Jesus belongs to? Would it make sense for Jesus' followers to start spreading his word outside of his land? The Kingdom of Heaven is for all and it's to be evangelized and spread to all nations after the resurrection. shafique double post shafique double post shafique
Sorry, I must have a different version of Matthew 10.5:
5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'
That says clearly to go to the lost sheep of Israel, the only people Jesus said he was sent to according to Matt 15.24, also quoted in my post.
I do understand that Christian theology is that Christ's message is universal and not limited to the Jews. As discussed before, that is where Muslims disagree with the Bible - where Paul diverges from Jesus' mission and extends the preaching to Gentiles.
Further references for Jesus telling disciples not to preach to non-Jews are:
And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda; for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. MATTHEW 2.6
The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever. LUKE 1.32/33
Where is he that is born the King of the Jews? MATTHEW 2.2
Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. JOHN 12.13
Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. JOAN 12.15
For this cause therefore I have called for you, to see you and, to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am hound with this chain. ACTS 28.20
Him that God hath exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. ACTS 5.31
0f this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a saviour. Jesus. ACTS 13.23
CHRIST'S OWN ADMISSION:
It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. MARK 7.27
For salvation is of the Jews. JOHN 4.22
Verily I say unto you, That which have followed me, in the regeneration when the son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye shall sit upon the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. MATTHEW 19.28
I appoint unto ye a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. LUKE 22.29/30
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, least they trample them unto their feet and turn again and rend you. MATTHEW 7.6
Ye know how that it is unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation. ACTS 10.28
Reference that there was dissension in the Early Church:
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to the uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. ACTS 11.1/3
Cheers,
Shafique valkyrie
Well, you asked me originally if the New Testament had any law regarding the stoning of homosexuals. I am curious though, do the Christians who tell you that the NT is not exhaustive share these views of theirs with their denomination? Do you know of any mainstream Christians sect that believes that Christians should adhere to laws in the OT that are not mentioned in the NT?
As for the James verse, I don't see how Christ says that good works means to follow the Law. Before that passage, James explains that to break one commandment of the Law is to break them all. So... when Christ touched unclean people and instructed his disciples to eat unclean food (both pre and post crucifixion), it would appear then, that James is saying Jesus is just as guilty as someone who kills or commits adultery. Before that passage, it reads to me that James is telling Christians to follow Jesus' commandments, rather than follow the 613 mitzvot (commandments). shafique
I've consulted/debated on this specific point with Roman Catholics and 'born again' evangelist protestants (from South Africa).
The point is that whilst they say they are not under the law, some of the laws of the OT are still relevant (the 10 commandments, for example) and that some laws that are not explicitly mentioned in the NT are still relevant (a Christian who is in favour of the death penalty was pretty clear on this point).
What I gathered therefore is that some of the OT laws Christians can choose not to follow, but others they should follow - and you can't necessarily identify the latter from just reading the NT.

Our view of Jesus was that as Messiah for the Jews he came to reform the Judaic practices which had become corrupt 1300 years after the time of Moses. The Jews had got to the point where the letter of the law was being followed and they had lost the spirit (and not to mention the corruption to the scriptures to accompany this).
Examples of this are the meaning of the Sabbath, the emphasis on revenge and the strict interpretation of the law.
However, this verse is clear to me - Jesus says 'just believing' in him is not good enough - it is 'dead' faith. One had to obey God's laws (i.e. not sin) as well as having the belief.
Christians I've spoken to all agree that there are still God's laws that they must follow and that to deliberately violate these rules will be a sign of lack of faith.
They however also say something which does not make sense to me - they say that salvation does not depend on following the laws or not, but that they have to follow them anyway as it is part of 'having faith'.
Cheers,
Shafique



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy