Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

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...

shafique wrote:Jesus said 'Do not cast pearls before swine' to emphasize that his message was only for Jews. Later St Paul, we believe, changed Jesus' message and marketed the religion to non-Jews.

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.

arniegang wrote: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?

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


Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote: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.

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:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gibbon/decline ... helsum.htm

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

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.

St.Lucifer wrote: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.

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

Thanks Shaf again for taking the time and trouble to explain

Shaf you should run for president.

St.Lucifer wrote: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.

I code embedded assembly so that must make me the universes '63 72 65 61 74 6f 72'

jabbajabba wrote:
I code embedded assembly so that must make me the universes '63 72 65 61 74 6f 72'

Next you'll be telling us 1 + 1 = 10

(That's the extent of my programming language jokes knowledge!
)

shafique wrote: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.

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."

shafique wrote:I think my understanding of Christian theology is better than average.

! 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.

shafique wrote:I think it is a bit arrogant to think one's interpretation is the only one that is valid,

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.

shafique wrote: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.

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.

shafique wrote:Let me ask you a simple question - do you believe every word of the Bible is the word of God and therefore the truth?

*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.

freza wrote: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?

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.

freza wrote: 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?

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.

freza wrote: 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."

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.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:I think my understanding of Christian theology is better than average.

! 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.

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 wrote: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?

shafique wrote: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.

*wow! this is so wrong it's almost funny! Here's what I wrote on a Feb. 5 post:

freza wrote: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.

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?)

shafique wrote: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.

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. duh

shafique wrote:'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.

And 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?

shafique wrote: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? ).

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?

shafique wrote:I have not likened Jehova's Witnesses with Scientologists, or called them a cult - you have.

oh I stand by this. I know the difference between a cult and a serious religion. Do you???

shafique wrote:In a way, you have demonstrated the intolerance towards differing views of the Bible which characterised the violence I have been referring to.

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 ), darn, that means I will go to hell? 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!

shafique wrote: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).

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.

shafique wrote: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.

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*

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

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

Shafique, do you realize that the OT prophecies mention the messiah bringing a new covenant with him, for both Jews and Gentiles?

valkyrie wrote:

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

Shafique, do you realize that the OT prophecies mention the messiah bringing a new covenant with him, for both Jews and Gentiles?

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

The New Covenant is referenced in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 31:31-32:

"The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.

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.

By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

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:

In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and peoples will stream to it.

Many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

He will judge between many peoples
and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Frederick wrote:

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?

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.

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

shafique wrote: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?

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.

I have heard Christians argue that 'nations' apply to the tribes of Israel

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.

I would trust their judgment about Jesus' mission above the interpretation of Paul

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.

Therefore true faith means one follows the laws of God and does not sin.

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.

Frederick wrote:

shafique wrote: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?

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.

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.

Frederick wrote: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.

Frederick wrote: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.

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)

Frederick wrote: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.

I would trust their judgment about Jesus' mission above the interpretation of Paul

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.

[/quote]

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.

Frederick wrote: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.

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

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

on the subject of infallibility, interesting how the Quran's infallibility has certainly been questioned, especially with this oldest of Qurans. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199901/koran

freza wrote:on the subject of infallibility, interesting how the Quran's infallibility has certainly been questioned, especially with this oldest of Qurans. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199901/koran

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

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): http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/quran9d.htm

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

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.

I'll start new thread to discuss the Quranic integrity vs that of the Bible - comparing and contrasting.

Cheers,
Shafique

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.

I came across these while rereading the NT.

Jesus said:

And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

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.

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.

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.

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