Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique wrote: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' ?

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.

shafique wrote: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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

and hence the arguments about it being an OT law that was no longer required in the new covenant should be moot

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.

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).

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.

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.

It is actually the only interpretation offered by theologians. You are simply proof texting and real theology requires more than that.

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

shafique wrote:This was in response to Freza saying there was a consensus in interpretation and that 'sects' within Christianity are a recent phenomenon.

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...

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

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.

I think the problem is selective reading.

slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. -Koran

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).


Cheers,
Shafique

There's taking a verse out of context or omitting the qualifications (such as 'fight only until injustice stops or the enemy offers truce')

That's one interpretation.

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).

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?

valkyrie wrote: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?

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

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 ed 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

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.

freza wrote: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.

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

shafique wrote: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.

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:

...teachings of the Bible, which has been studied through hundreds of years of trial and error to achieve a standard of common understanding

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.

freza wrote:
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.

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

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?

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?

That is one interpretation.

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.

There's taking a verse out of context or omitting the qualifications (such as 'fight only until injustice stops or the enemy offers truce')

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.

valkyrie wrote:
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?

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!).

valkyrie wrote:
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.

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.

valkyrie wrote:

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.

'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

shafique, that's not my interpretation of v9:5, but Ibn Kathir's. I hightlighted that verse because he used it himself. http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20750

I have a feeling that if I do more research on this verse, more Islamic scholars would disagree with your interpretation.

If the laws weren't destroyed and you still need 'works' on top of faith...

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.

For me the 10 commandments are part of the law - are you saying that these do not need to be followed by Christians?

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.

All Christians I know say that they are still in effect.

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

If you equate Shakespeare with the Bible, then logically - yes. Are you saying both are fiction?

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?

valkyrie wrote:shafique, that's not my interpretation of v9:5, but Ibn Kathir's. I hightlighted that verse because he used it himself. http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20750

I have a feeling that if I do more research on this verse, more Islamic scholars would disagree with your interpretation.

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

valkyrie wrote:

Christ said the Old Law was fulfilled. What's your definition of fulfill?

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?

valkyrie wrote: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.

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.

valkyrie wrote:To be honest, I don't know very much about the "works" verse. I'll look that up.

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)

valkyrie wrote: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.

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)

valkyrie wrote:

All Christians I know say that they are still in effect.

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

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

valkyrie wrote:

If you equate Shakespeare with the Bible, then logically - yes. Are you saying both are fiction?

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?

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

shafique wrote: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.

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.

oops, double post.

freza wrote: 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.

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.

freza wrote:
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.

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')

freza wrote:
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.

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.

freza wrote:
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.

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

freza wrote:
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.

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

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?

arniegang wrote: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?

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

shafique wrote: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 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.

shafique wrote: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')

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:)

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

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?

shafique wrote: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.

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.

shafique wrote: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?

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.

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

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?