Thursday, 7 July 2011

War and peace in Quran and Bible - Which book promotes violence?

This video makes it quite clear which one of the two texts is bloodier, more violent, and encourages warfare on an offensive, rather than a defensive, basis. Philip Jenkins, the author of a study titled 'Dark Passages', makes it clear which of the two Holy Scriptures is the more peaceful. Take note, at 9:34 he says:

"My intention is absolutely to the contrary. My intention is to say that passages in the Bible have become dead letters for most Christians and Jews. What I`m trying to say is that because that there are passages in the Quràn that sound bloody or violent - this does not make the Quràn a bloody text, it does not make Islam a religion of blood."


110 comments:

RefutingActs17 said...

Anthony Rogers, maybe you would like to offer your opinions on this matter?

minoria said...

Just giving my first impression,at minute 7 the Muslim says:There was never a case of genocide against non-Muslims

He does not know history,there were 3 genocides:Armenian,Greek and Assyrian by the Young Turks.

For the Young Turks Islam was part of Turkish idenity and essential.It was 1.5 million Armenians killed,500,000 Greeks,and from 500-750,000 Assyrians.

Read:

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/03/26/the-myth-of-the-well-treatment-of-christians-by-the-ottoman-muslims/

minoria said...

I was disappointed with Philip Jenkins.He is a scholar.

BASICS

As a scholar and if the theme is violence in the Bible then he should have said,for us the non-scholars,the laymen:

"Christianity has the NT.The essence is the Golden Rule.This is basics.Violence is regulated by the Golden rule,which are in these passages:

http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/04/le-coeur-ethique-de-jesuspaul-et-le-nt/

minoria said...

Jenkins said the violent passages in the OT had become a "dead letter".The audience would think:"He said dead letter,that means they are VALID but they are IGNORED"

The situation is not like Jenkins said,besides as a scholar Jenkins should have said:

"Those laws in Deutero,etc are in the OT Mosaic law.That was fullfilled by the New Alliance 2,000 years ago,so they were NEVER VALID.Again this is the BASICS."

As you can see Jenkins is a scholar but he is NOT an effective teacher,he is disorganized.

RefutingActs17 said...

Hello Minoria,

According to who, or which passage in the NT, abrogates the violent passages in the OT? Enlighten me.

RefutingActs17 said...

Also, are you sure that the 'genocides' committed were done by Muslim soldiers under Islamic governance or secular governance?

And does Islamic law sanction the senseless killing of disbelievers?

Lupus el Lobo said...

Miniora,

In what way were the actions of the young turks governed by islam? It was a secular nationalistic organization that had as one of it's goals to limit the influence of religion.
Even the genocide committed during the Ottoman period had nothing to do with religion. Christians had been living under Ottoman rule for centuries. When the empire started to collapse minorities were seen as a threath to the stability of the empire. Nationalistic ideas had at the end of the 19th century started to permeate most European countries and as a result numerous minorities demanded more independence.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Miniora:

You can talk about the new alliance all you wan't. We've already seen what kind of violence Christianity could inspire when the church was in power.

There is no reason to believe things will be any different if the Church regained its hegemony in the future.

minoria said...

Hello Lupus:

You mad an important question.The Young Turks were nationalistic but they ONLY targeted NON-MUSLIM groups for extermination/expulsion.

Some 200,000 Armenian women saved themselves from the genocide by converting to Islam.If Islam was not an issue then their conversion would not have made a difference

minoria said...

Hello Lupus:

I will give another example.The terrorist organization called the FLN(Front de Liberation National) killed 3,000 innocent European civilians and at least 30,000(or 70,000) MUSLIM-ARAB CIVILIANS(men,women and children massacred in cold blood).They got ALgerian independence in 1962.

SO?

They were nationalistic,even secular but Islam was ALSO part of their IDENTITY.How do we know?

minoria said...

Here I will quote from Wikipedia but it is something I have read in other sources,written by French scholars.

1.First,the FLN made ALGERIAN CITIZENSHIP available only for those who were MUSLIM.

Now to quote Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_(Algeria)

minoria said...

"1.Also strongly present as an ideological influence on the FLN was Algerian Islam, especially of the reformist-nationalist variety espoused by Ben Badis and his group of nationalist ulema.

2.The movement absolutely rejected atheism and was not overtly secularist, contrary to widespread perception in the West, and during the war Islam was perhaps its most important mobilizing ideology.

3. Still, after independence, the party would in practice assume a strongly modernist interpretation of Islam, supported social transformation of Algerian society, the emancipation of women, etc., and worked only through secular institutions.

4.Religion was thus relegated to the role of legitimizing factor for the party-regime. This was especially the case under the presidency of col. Houari Boumédiènne (1965–78), but even then Islam was considered the state religion and a crucial part of Algerian identity, and Boumédiènne himself took pride in his Quranic training.

5.His predecessor Ahmed Ben Bella (1962–65) was more committed to the Islamic component of the regime, although always viewed as more of an Arab nationalist than an Islamic activist (and he remains far removed from what is today referred to as Algeria's Islamists).

6. Boumédiènnes successor, col. Chadli Bendjedid (1979–92) would tone down the Socialist aspect of the movement, and during the mid- to late 1980s he reintroduced religiously conservative legislation in an attempt to appease growing Islamist opposition. During and after the Algerian Civil War, the party's position has remained that of claiming Algerian Islam as a main influence, while simultaneously arguing that this must be expressed as a progressive and modern faith, even if the party generally keeps in line with the conservative social mores of Algeria's population. It has strongly condemned the radical-fundamentalist religious teachings of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) and other Islamist groups, even while supporting the inclusion of non-violent Islamist parties in the political system and working with them.

RefutingActs17 said...

Hello Minoria,

There is a fine, rather clear, dichotomy between one's ethnicity and religion.

You said it yourself, the Young Turks attacked the "Armenian, Greek and Assyrian", which all in happen to be Christian. As you can see, this wasn't genocide committed on the basis of religion. There are hundreds of Christian folk in Turkey who are not among the three nationalities you listed.

Furthermore, are you sure these 200,000 Christian women were forced to convertto Islam? Kindly provide your historical references regarding the above issues.

minoria said...

Hello Lupus:

Yous said:

"There is no reason to believe things will be any different if the Church regained its hegemony in the future."

The word EKKLESIA(translated as Church) in the NT means an assembly of believers.If they FOLLOW the Golden Rule given by Jesus(which is the basis of human rights) then there is nothing to fear.

minoria said...

Hello Lupus:

So as you can see the expulsion of 1 million Europeans(who had been BORN in Algerian,and whose PARENTS had been born there)plus 120,000 JEWS from Algeria is RELATED to the ISLAMIC identity of the FLN.

If the Algerian Arabs and Berbers had been Christian or Buddhist or atheist then the Muslim religion would have had no role and there would have been no mass expulsion.

minoria said...

Hello Refuting Acts:

The violent passages refer to the war against the Cananites of 1300 BC approxim.

1.For 400 years they had practiced child sacrifice.The Cananites of Lebanon were called Phenicians.They settled in Carthage in 800 BC(Tunisia)and for hundreds of years sacrified children.Ancient authors tell us and we have discovered the remains of 10,000-20,000 children in a mass graveyard.That was more than 500 YEARS AFTER God had condemned the Cananites of PALESTINE.

minoria said...

2.So child sacrifice was PART of CANANITE RELIGION.The OT says the Cananites KNEW of the miracles done by God for the Jews(alot of miracles,in Egypt and on the way to palestine).

(Joshua 2:9-11 says they knew of the parting of the sea for the Jews)

3.But they did not repent.In other OT passages it says that if people repent God suspends his judgement of destruction on them(example:Jonah and the city of Nineveh)

minoria said...

3.If the cananites had repented the order would have been suspended.The judgement was CONDITIONAL.

Now JENKINS surely knows THAT.He knows the violence commited on the Cananites was because of child sacrifice that they did not want to stop and that they KNEW(according to the text) that God existed,he had been PROVEN.Yet they didn't care.

NOW IF

Now if the OT only said that God ordered to kill the Chinese for NO REAL reason and without PROVING to the Chinese he was God THEN Jenkins would be right.

But he know all I said,so his essay "Dark Passages" has no basis.He knows if he told what I have just said his thesis would be wrong.

minoria said...

In the case of the Koran the violent orders are given but Muhammad did no miracles(unless you accept the split moon),nobody ever saw the angel Gabriel and so the SITUATION is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from that of the OT.

RefutingActs17 said...

Minoria,

You have some interesting historical facts about the violent passages and Canaanites, but none which you can substantiate. I feel Jenkins, a scholar in his field, is suited for this type of work. Please provide me references from the NT that clearly abrogate the violent passages from the OT. That is all that I ask.

As for your statement concerning Gabriel, you are incorrect. Many of the Prophet's companions saw Gabriel and what he said is well documented in the Sahih Hadith. Even the companions reactions are found on record.

Ali said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lupus el Lobo said...

Miniora:

All of a sudden you start talking about the FLN. Nothing about the French and their atrocities. Whatever the FLN did, it should be judged in the light of the brutal French occupation.

The young turks also prosecuted ulamas and closed down madrasas. Are those actions of people who follow islam? Moreover, Kurds who are muslims have also been attacked.

Whenever muslims do something bad it is because of their religion. Whenever christians do something bad it is despite of their religion. Well that argument only works on people with an IQ below 10.

Minoria, I must say that the French got what they deserved in Algeria.

minoria said...

Hello Lupus

You said:

"Please provide me references from the NT that clearly abrogate the violent passages from the OT. That is all that I ask."

I gave you the link with the statements about the Golden Rule.If you read them you will see the word LAW.Every Jew knew the meaning,it referred to the Law of Moses=Law of God but in the NT the same word is used to mean:

Law=Law of God=Golden Rule.

Jenkins certainly knows THAT.So it is a clear statement that THAT is now the Law of God to follow.

minoria said...

The FLN never had any moral level since almost from the beginning they began with terrorist atrocities.They saw the population in general,even the Muslim,was not inclined to revolution and so acted like Hamas,Hezbullah,Ben Laden.They would have killed you just for saying you were apolitical or neutral or indifferent,that you just wanted peace.

minoria said...

You wrote:

"The young turks also prosecuted ulamas and closed down madrasas. Are those actions of people who follow islam? Moreover, Kurds who are muslims have also been attacked.

Whenever muslims do something bad it is because of their religion. Whenever christians do something bad it is despite of their religion. Well that argument only works on people with an IQ below 10."

The Young Turks made Islam part of their ideology for cynical reasons.If you read their PUBLIC writings they proclaim Islam.

They were Positivists,in their private letters they did not believe.But their common followers were true Muslim believers and so followed orders to commit genocide..so Muslims did commit the genocide,and non-Muslims also.

You can read here for more detail on their ideas and Islam:

http://www.h-net.org/~fisher/hst373/readings/hanioglu.html

minoria said...

TO CONTINUE

You said:

"Whenever muslims do something bad it is because of their religion. Whenever christians do something bad it is despite of their religion. Well that argument only works on people with an IQ below 10."

The crucial difference is that in the NT(er,Christianity) the GOLDEN RULE occupies a CENTRAL PART,it is the ethical heart,the moral basis,the LAW(as is written in the NT).

In the Koran the Golden Rule exists in several passages but it is NEVER called the LAW.

minoria said...

Here you can find the various passages where the Golden Rule is in the Koran but it is never called the LAW.

minoria said...

Here it is:
http://www.avraidire.com/2010/09/le-coran-et-la-regle-dor/

sam shamoun suporter said...

United Kingdom--Islamic extremists have called on British Muslims to establish three independent states within the UK.

The notorious Muslims Against the Crusades (MAC) group have named Yorkshire towns Bradford and Dewsbury and Tower Hamlets in East London as testbeds for blanket sharia rule.

The medieval 'emirates' would operate entirely outside British law, according to a document on the MAC website.

The MAC group, led by Abu Assadullah, was set up last year and has become notorious because of its violent protests, most provocatively burning poppies during the Remembrance Day silence.

Under the heading 'Muslims should set up Islamic emirates in the UK', MAC says: 'We suggest it is time that areas with large Muslim populations declare an emirate delineating that Muslims trying to live within this area are trying to live by the sharia as much as possible with their own courts and community watch and schools and even self sufficient trade.

Anonymous said...

RefutingActs: "As for your statement concerning Gabriel, you are incorrect. Many of the Prophet's companions saw Gabriel and what he said is well documented in the Sahih Hadith. Even the companions reactions are found on record."

References for this claim that "many" of the sahaba "saw Gabriel" please. I would like to see this for myself in the Sahih Hadith and confirm what you are saying about your sources. Since you asked minoria for references you will surely not have an objection to also providing them.

minoria said...

Hi,
I want to state more on the word LAW.Jenkins should certainly know LAW was the highest level possible

You find it defined here(the word LAW appears):

Matthew 7:12
Rom 13:8-10
Galat 5:14
James 2:8

Law of God=Law of Christ

That phrase appears in 1 COR 9:21,no definition given but elsewhere Paul says LAW="love your neighbor as yourself"

What is Love?

Paul gives a definition-description of AGAPE(love) in:

1 COR 13:1-8 ad in 1 COR 13:13 he says AGAPE(love,charity) is GREATER than HOPE and FAITH.

minoria said...

Who are you to say X is NOT a Christian?

The general audience accepts,based on Jenkins,that the Inquisition,the KKK,etc count as real Christians

You can add the Nazi version of Christianity called Positive Christianity plus the racist group called the German-Christian church that supported Hitler

minoria said...

Jesus gave us a MINIMUM BASIS for DETERMINING who was a Christian

Certainly there is the LAW.then in MATT 7:21-23:

"1.Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

2.Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’

3. And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you;

DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’"

minoria said...

"But he who does the will of the Father"

What is the WILL of God?The text does not say but in the NT the highest possible level,the LAW is defined as the Golden Rule

So that is God's will.Since the KKK,the Inquisition,etc go against the Golden Rule then one can say they can not(according to the NT definition) be counted as Christians.

minoria said...

Notice it says "Not everyone who is saying to ME(me,Jesus) :"Lord,Lord,will enter the kingdom..."(Young's Literal translation)

It is NOT:"Not every one who SAYS LORD,LORD."

That way it could be interpreted as "not everyone ACCEPTS GOD in GENERAL,but NOT JESUS."

The passage refers to those who accept Jesus as Lord=who publicly say they are Christian(however you define the word Christian:

Unitarian,Arian,Jehovah's witness,Mormon,KKK,Positive Christianity,etc
)

minoria said...

It can even refer to Muslims

Since Muslims accept Jesus as the MESSIAH,as a great teacher and prophet,and since they say(rightly) that the word Lord has a secular meaning(master,teacher who is your spiritual master)

and since they say Jesus was a MUSLIM and they follow the SAME RELIGION as the HISTORICAL JESUS then you can include them as FOLLOWERS of the true,historical JESUS who TAUGHT ISLAM.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Minoria:

Which law do you follow, turn the other cheek or the golden law?

According to the golden law can you use violence to spread Christianity?
Let's say a group of Christians argue that they would have liked to be forcefully converted to Christianity if they were unbelivers and that's why they use violence to convert unbelievers.
The Golden law is too fuzzy to base an entire moral system on. That's why Christians have no clear moral system as Muslims have.

RefutingActs17 said...

To Minoria,

But Minoria you still haven't proven your case. You still haven't provided evidence that the Golden Rule is the law which abrogates the Mosaic law. There's nothing in the Bible that says so. Please understand that you're willingly interpreting the Bible you see fit. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to hear your opinion on the matter. I hope this dialog turns out to be fruitful. I hope all that I've said till now has not hurt your feelings in any way. I ask for your forgiveness if it has, and will strive to do better to be more respectful, Insh'Allah.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Minoria:

The passage refers to those who accept Jesus as Lord=who publicly say they are Christian(however you define the word Christian:

Unitarian,Arian,Jehovah's witness,Mormon,KKK,Positive Christianity,etc
)

Lupus said:

Is it possible that it refers to your brand of Christianity? What criteria from the NT do you use for establishing who is a true Christian?

Both I and mein brather Ref... are waiting for you to give us a reference from the NT that explicitly says the Golden Rule has abrogated Mosaic Law

Anonymous said...

RefutingActs: "As for your statement concerning Gabriel, you are incorrect. Many of the Prophet's companions saw Gabriel and what he said is well documented in the Sahih Hadith. Even the companions reactions are found on record."

References for this claim that "many" of the sahaba "saw Gabriel" please. I would like to see this for myself in the Sahih Hadith and confirm what you are saying about your sources. Since you asked minoria for references you will surely not have an objection to also providing them.

...still waiting for references Refuting ;)

RefutingActs17 said...

@To Anonymous


Here's one of the most popular and authentic hadiths of all time regarding Gabriel, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his companions. It's one of the 40 An-Nawawi Hadiths:

Also on the authority of Omar, who said : One day while we were sitting with the messenger of Allah there appeared before us a man whose clothes were exceedingly white and whose hair was exceedingly black; no signs of journeying were to be seen on him and none of us knew him. He walked up and sat down by the prophet. Resting his knees against his and placing the palms of his hands on his thighs, he said:"O Muhammed, tell me about Islam". The messenger of Allah said: "Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammed is the messenger of Allah, to perform the prayers, to pay the zakat, to fast in Ramadhan, and to make the pilgrimage to the House if you are able to do so." He said:"You have spoken rightly", and we were amazed at him asking him and saying that he had spoken rightly. He said: "Then tell me about eman ."He said:"It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day, and to believe in divine destiny, both the good and the evil thereof." He said:"You have spoken rightly". He said: " Then tell me about ehsan ." He said: "It is to worship Allah as though you are seeing Him, and while you see Him not yet truly He sees you". He said: "Then tell me about the Hour". He said: "The one questioned about it knows no better than the questioner." He said: "Then tell me about its signs." He said: "That the slave-girl will give birth to her mistress and that you will see the barefooted, naked, destitute herdsman competing in constructing lofty buildings." Then he took himself off and I stayed for a time. Then he said: "O Omar, do you know who the questioner was?" I said: "Allah and His messenger know best". He said: "He was Jebreel (Gabriel), who came to you to teach you your religion."

minoria said...

Hello Lupus:

How is anybody going to want to be forced to do something that they dont to do?
If you dont want to eat pork how can that mean you really want to?

But to answer Refutingacts:

The Hebrew word Berit/Brit

It means alliance,covenant

minoria said...

I have said this before:

Jeremiah 31:31-34:

From biblegateway.com(Young's Literal translation):

"Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Jehovah,

1.And I have made with the house of Israel And with the house of Judah(Note:with all the Jews)

a new covenant(berit),


2.Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt(Note:Mosaic Law), In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them -- an affirmation of Jehovah.

4.For this [is] the covenant that I make, With the house of Israel, after those days, An affirmation of Jehovah, I have given My law in their inward part, And on their heart I do write it, And I have been to them for God, And they are to me for a people.

34And they do not teach any more Each his neighbour, and each his brother, Saying, Know ye Jehovah, For they all know Me, from their least unto their greatest, An affirmation of Jehovah; For I pardon their iniquity, And of their sin I make mention no more.

minoria said...

NOTE

Now the Jews say that though it says new berit it still means the old one since a few lines later:

JEREMIAH 31:36:

"If these statutes depart from before Me, An affirmation of Jehovah, Even the seed of Israel doth cease From being a nation before Me all the days."

The word STATUES(also translated as ORDERS,COMMANDS) for them mean the 613 laws of the Torah.But it is logical to see it refers to the orders and details just given relating to the NEW LAW referred to in JEREM 31:31-34.

minoria said...

THE MESSIAH WILL ESTABLISH A BERIT WITH THE GENTILES

(again Young's Literal transl.)

ISAIAH 42:1-6:

"1.Lo, My servant, I take hold on him, My chosen one -- My soul hath accepted, I have put My Spirit upon him, Judgment to nations he bringeth forth (MESSIAH).........

2.He doth not become weak nor bruised, Till he setteth judgment in the earth

3.And for his law (Note:law of the Messiah)isles wait with hope...............

4.Jehovah, did call thee(Messiah) in righteousness, And I lay hold on thy hand, and keep thee,

5.And I give thee(Messiah) for a covenant(berit) of a people,

6.And a light of nations.

minoria said...

THEN IN THE LAST SUPPER

Jesus says in MARK 14:24:

"and he said to them, `This is my blood of the new covenant, which for many is being poured out;"

minoria said...

LUKE 22:20

"In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth."

MATT 26:28:

"for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins;"

minoria said...

THEN IN PAUL

1 COR 11:23-19:

"or I -- I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread,

24and having given thanks, he brake, and said, `Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye -- to the remembrance of me.'

25In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, `This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink [it] -- to the remembrance of me;'"

minoria said...

ABOUT JENKINS AGAIN

Now it is really hard to believe Jenkins does NOT know THAT.

I know the AUDIENCE certainly does not,I think all this is new to YOU.I now Jenkins will soon publish his new book called DARK PASSAGES and I suspect he will not really delineate what I have just told you,leaving it it the note section as though it were something MINOR when it is MAJOR...or not even metnioning it at all.

minoria said...

READING JENKINS ARTICLE:

It is here:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_passages/?page=full

HE SAID:

"Certainly, the New Testament contains far fewer injunctions to kill or segregate. Yet it has its own troublesome passages, especially when the Gospel of John expresses such hostility to the Ioudaioi, a Greek word that usually translates as "Jews."

Ioudaioi plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil." That is in JOHn 8:44:

When you read to WHOLE STORY in JOHN 8:30-44 we have:

minoria said...

Cetainly Jenkins,but NOT the AUDIENCE knows:

JOHN 8:30-44:

"As he is speaking these things, many believed in him;

31Jesus, therefore, said unto the Jews who believed in him, `If ye may remain in my word, truly my disciples ye are, and ye shall know the truth,

32and the truth shall make you free.'..................

(THEN JESUS SAYS TO OTHER JEWS)


37`I have known that ye are seed of Abraham, but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you;..........................


40and now, ye seek to kill me -- a man who hath spoken to you the truth I heard from God; this Abraham did not;
..........................

44`Ye are of a father -- the devil, and the desires of your father ye will to do; he was a man-slayer from the beginning, and in the truth he hath not stood, because there is no truth in him; when one may speak the falsehood, of his own he speaketh, because he is a liar -- also his father."

minoria said...

OK....

As you can see JENKINS make it seem as though Jesus was TALKING ABOUT THE JEWS IN GENERAL,not just to a little group that literally wanted to KILL HIM.

He certainly knows that later on in JOHN 8:59 it says:

"they took up, therefore, stones that they may cast at him, but Jesus hid himself, and went forth out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by"

But does the AUDIENCE,the READERS?No,of course not.

minoria said...

LATER ON IN THR SAMA ARTICLE

Jenkins says:

"How many American Christians know that the New Testament demands that women cover their hair, at least in church settings,"

Cetainly Jenkins knows:

1 COR 11:13-15:

"Decide this for yourselves: Is it right for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14 Even nature itself teaches you that wearing long hair is shameful for a man.

15 But long hair is a woman's glory

. Long hair is given to her as a covering"

Do the readers know that DETAIL,that for Paul LONG HAIR=COVERING also,he accepted it,so a piece of cloth was all that was a COVERING?

They dont.I believe Jenkins has no case.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Miniora:

The problem with the new covenant theology that you're trying to argue for is that it is a fairly new idea. This means that Christians have for centuries followed the wrong theology. Moreover, you still haven't shown us where in the NT it says that the old law has been abrogated and to what extent. You provide scattered verses and your own definitions without showing us a clear verse from the NT.

RefutingActs17 said...

Dear Minoria,

I have to concur with Lupus. Please take your time and show a clear verse that renders the OT, rather the Mosaic Law, defunct.

minoria said...

Hello Lupus,

I thought that was enough.Jesus talking of a New Covenant(the SAME phrase used in Jeremiah) should be enough.

Here is more(it quotes JEREMIAH 31:31-34:

Hebrews 8:7-13

"For if that first covenant had been faultless,

then no place would have been sought for a second

Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds[a] I will remember no more.”[b]

In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete

. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

minoria said...

ALSO

HEBREWS 10:9-18:

"then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.”[a]

He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, (QUOTING JEREMIAH 31 AGAIN)
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”[b] 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”[c] 18

Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin."

minoria said...

HEBREWS 9:1-14:

"1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; 3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold,......................14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this reason He(NoteJesus) is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

minoria said...

NOTICE THE FOLLOWING

Hebrews 8:13:

"In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete

. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

THE LETTER REFERS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE HIGH PRIEST IN THE PRESENT TENSE

Plus in other cases,using the present tense for the Temple,the letter says it was written before 70 AD,year the Temple was destroyed

HEBREWS 8:3-5:

"For every high priest

is appointed to offer(Note:present ense,not "high priest WAS APPOINTED to OFFER)

both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”"

minoria said...

ALSO

HEBREWS 10;1-3:

"For the law(Note:Mosaic Law), having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices,

which they offer continually year by year(NOTE:Present tense,not "they OFFERED year by year), make those who approach perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year."

minoria said...

SO?

Again:


Hebrews 8:13:

"In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete

. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

I argued before that according to:
1. Q,

2.and the Olivet prophecy

3.and Josephus

4.and the 2 Talmuds

5.And Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

there was knowledge BEFORE 70 AD that the Temple would be destroyed.

A vast number of laws(like Leviticus) were associated with the temple in Mosaic law,so the phrase:

"Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

would refer to knowledge of the high priest sacrificing in the Temple in Yom Kippur once a year,the never ending Temple sacrifices,etc

minoria said...

finally ENDING because the Temple would be DESTROYED

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hello Minoria,

First of all, you need to prove that the OT passages talk about Jesus. You take that for granted. We don't and that's and entirely different discussion.

Secondly, the passages you refer to seem to talk about tempel sacrifice. You haven't shown us a clear passage that shows that Jesus clearly abrogated the entire mosaic law. You talk about a new covenant but you don't show us that this new covenant means that the entire mosaic law was abrogated.
Moreover, you haven't addressed the argument I made in an earlier post: "The problem with the new covenant theology that you're trying to argue for is that it is a fairly new idea. This means that Christians have for centuries followed the wrong theology."

minoria said...

Hello Lupus

You said that the term "new covenant/alliance" doesn't mean abrogation of Mosaic Law.But I cited Hebrews 8 where they cited Jeremiah 31:

"I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9

not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt"

The second part refers to the giving of MOSAIC LAW to the Jews on Mt Sinai after they left Egypt.Nobody doubts that.Then it says the first covenant/alliance had been made obsolete.

Obsolete means it is not longer binding.The very word NEW means a change has been made.

One line before in Hebrews 8:6 it says:

"But now He(Jesus) has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the (N)mediator of (O)a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises."

minoria said...

Hello Lupus:

You stated:

"Is it possible that it refers to your brand of Christianity? What criteria from the NT do you use for establishing who is a true Christian?

Both I and mein brather Ref... are waiting for you to give us a reference from the NT that explicitly says the Golden Rule has abrogated Mosaic Law"

MOSAIC LAW AND JUDAISM

I had stated this before and in JUDAISM and in CHRISTIANITY is ONLY for the JEWS,never for Gentiles.

The vast majority of Christians are non-Jews so EVEN IF Mosaic Law were binding today it would not apply to us.

minoria said...

PAUL ALSO TALKS OF THE LAW BEING REPLACED

EPHESIANS 2:12-15:

"remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15

by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,"

minoria said...

ROMANS 3:26-28:

"he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law"

minoria said...

USE OF THE WORD LAW

Notice it can mean the 613 laws of Mosaic law or the basic law of God that has no need of supernatural revelation(Golden Rule),like in:

ROMANS 2:14-15:

"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law(Mosaic Law),

do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves,

even though they do not have the law(Mosaic law),

15 since they show that the works of the law are written on their hearts(Golden Rule, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"

minoria said...

THEN AGAIN WHAT IS THE LAW?

Besides the obvious Mosaic Law,as I said before,there is the Golden Rule=Law:

You find it defined here(the word LAW appears):

Matthew 7:12
Rom 13:8-10
Galat 5:14
James 2:8

Law of God=Law of Christ

You see PAUL using both terms here,1 COR 9:21:

"To those not having the law(Mosaic law)

I became like one not having the law

(though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the (Mosaic)law."

minoria said...

I had said that LAW is the HIGHEST level

Any rabbi would agree but the NT says so also.

A Perfect law,a law of Liberty

James 1:25 talks of such a law:

"and he who did look into the perfect law -- that of liberty"

minoria said...

What was he talking about?

JAMES 2:8 defines it and also calls it the Royal law

"The royal law is found in Scripture. It says, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

So the Golden Rule is called:

Law:of God,of Christ,perfect,royal,of liberty

HILLEL(greatest of the Pharisee teachers of all time)

He lived a generation before Jesus and was asked to say Mosaic law on his foot and said its essence:

"Do not do to others what you dont want others to do to you",that is the Law,the rest is commentary,go and do the same."

minoria said...

So Paul calling the Golden Rule the Law of God means he had it at the highest level.

Now in his book Jenkins might say:

"The KKK,the Lord's Liberation Army in Africa that has killed 100,000 innocents and whose leader Joseph Kony has been declared guilty of crimes against humanity by the International Court(with an arrest warrant on him),

Positive Christianity and the Inquisition are all EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIAN TERRORISM."

THE NT CLEARLY SAYS THE GOLDEN RULE IS THE HIGHEST STANDARD

Based on THAT ONLY I cant by LOGIC exclude say the JW's,Mormons,Unitarians,not even the Bahais(who accept Jesus as a prophet,plus Buddha,Krishna,Mohammad) as Christians since THEY ACCEPT the GOLDEN RULE

minoria said...

BUT...

Based on the Golden Rule as an INTEGRAL part of the NT,which it is,and Jenkins should know,then if he should say the KKK or the Inquisition were Christian,he would be showing he never learned basics.

The Golden Rule was NOT part of the ideology of say the Inquisition,the KKK,etc.So I can use Jesus saying:"Not all who say to ME:"Lord,Lord" will enter the Kingdom of heaven but those who do the will of the Father."

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hello Minoria:

Thank you for your reply. Could you please give me one clear verse. This seems to be a basic tenent of your type of Christianity, so it should be fairly easy to infer from the NT. Give me one verse or two, not 10.
Give me the strongest verse. I'm sorry Minoria but I'm starting to believe that either you intentionally are trying to confuse your discussant by the sheer volume of verses, definitions etc or that you live in some sort of bubble and can't really see that you're confusing your discussant.

If you asked me about a clear verse form the Quran about the Oneness of Allah, I would've had no problems giving you one verse. I wouldn't have had to give you umpteen verses and also bring in hadiths. If there are no clear verses say so and we can work from there.

RefutingActs17 said...

Minoria:

Matthew 5:17-20

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

What law, was Jesus talking about?

minoria said...

Hello Lupus
I already gave you the verse by Paul in EPHESIAN 2 about Mosaic law being no longer in force.Paul was speaking for Jesus,it is as clear as possible.

The very term New Covenant says the Old Covenant is no longer in force.

minoria said...

Hello RefutingActs

You mentioned:

Matthew 5:7:17:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

It refers 2 things:

1.To obeying Mosaic Law to the extent allowed by the Pharisees in Palestine in 30 AD

In Matt 23:2-3:

"(Jesus)Saying "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat(Note:interpret Mosaic Law correctly):

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.""





18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

minoria said...

Remember BOTH verses are in the SAME BOOK.

The Pharisees in 30 AD

They accepted Roman rule,accepted the right to capital punishment of Mosaic Law by the Jews to be annulled by the Romans(6 AD).So a modification was made.

2.It refers all the that Jesus would fulfill the prophecies in the OT(Law and prophets) of the FIRST COMING

So we have:

Matthew 5:7:17:

"Think not that I(Jesus) am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

minoria said...

THEN IN MATTHEW 5:18:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,

one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Officially the entire Mosaic law was still accepted but in effect parts(some 12 or more death sentences) were no longer allowed to the Jews.

Offcially it was all valid.But "till all is fulfilled" means Mosaic Law was in effect till all the prophecies of the FIRST COMING of Jesus had been accomplished.

minoria said...

THEN

MATTHEW 5:19:

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same,

shall be called least

in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

THE TERM KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

It can mean paradise but also means the rule of God on earth,like int he prayer:

"Our Father,who is in heaven,holy is your name

Your kingdom come,you will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

minoria said...

THE REAL TERM IS "KINGDOM OF GOD" NOT KINGDOM OF HEAVEN(only paradise?)

Matt didnt like to say "God",but in MARK,LUKE AND JOHN it is kingdom of God

But Palestine in 30 AD was NOT the Kingdom of God

So Jesus was saying that in an IDEAL world all Mosaic Law would have to be obeyed,but only till the resurrection.

minoria said...

ABOUT SCHOLARS AND SCHOLARS

From all I said it is obvious that the GOLDEN RULE is the highest level possible in the NT.

Then was Hitler a Christian?

You hear that often.One argument is Hitler approved of Positive Christianity and it is true.he also approved of the racist German-Christian church designed by believers in Aryan superirority,and that Jesus was not a Jew but an Aryan

minoria said...

So Phd Hector Avalos,scholar,in a chapter in The Christian Delusion actually says Positive Christianity is an authentic and valid form of Christianity comparing it to the JW's,Gnostics,Mormons,Ebionites,Arian church(of Arianism,begun in the 300's AD by the priest Arius of Alexandria,not having anything to do with the Aryan race)setc.

The PROBLEM is those groups,to my knowledge all ACCEPTED the GOLDEN RULE.

The historical Jesus and the historical Paul accepted the Golden Rule

So EVEN IF the historical Jesus never said he was God he certainly accepted the Golden Rule and only IN THAT SENSE can you argue that Mormonism,Arianism,Gnosticism,etc are VALID FORMS of Christianity since they AT LEAST accept the central ethical heart of Jesus' teachings

minoria said...

But to say Positive Christianity is valid is to go against the historical Jesus and who should know better than he about what is the minimum acceptable or not?

Avalos is an ex-Christian and now atheist.

Dan Barker

He is an atheist,ex-Christian who wsa a minsiter for 19 years.In debates with Dinesh D'Souza he actually said Hitler was a Christian.

Richard Carrier

He is also a scholar and in youtbe(in skepticon I think) has also said Hitler was a Christian.

The truth is EVEN IF Hitler in all seriosuness had ever said it he would not be one according to the minimum ehtical standards of the historical Jesus and Paul since Hitler had rejected the Godlen Rule as part of his ideology

It certainly wasnt part of Positive Christianity,so you can be a scholar and still say absurdities that other scholars would reject as nonsense.

minoria said...

WHY I SAY ALL THINS?

Because it is important and ALSO because I suspect JENKINS in his upcoming book might actually argue about violence in the Bible with:

"Hitler was a Christian"

"The Inquisition,the KKK,Positive Christianity,the IRA,are examples of Christian terrorists and terrorism

RefutingActs17 said...

Minoria,

Just a quick comment. I promise to write more later. But I hate it when people point to the KKK and Hitler and call them Christian. They weren't, and they will never be because they don't follow Jesus's teachings. Simple.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Hello Minoria,

According to Ehrman Ephesians is a forgery. Even if it was written by Paul, I find it a bit problematic that so much of Christian theology comes from a man that hasn't even met Jesus.

minoria said...

Hello Lupus,
We are working on the assumption that one is to evaluate by the whole NT.JENKINS is doing the same.The official version,not whether one thinks the official version is true or not.

But Paul in the letters considered authentic says he knew James,Peter and John.The position is not whether the NT is true or not but to evaluate it according to its own content.

The same you would when analyzing the HINDU TEXTS,not whether they true or notbut whether they say there is only one God or many gods,not whether their affirmation is true or not.

minoria said...

ABOUT MATT AGAIN

One can say:"Jesus approving Mosaic law no longer being in force is only YOUR interpretation of MATT 5:17-19".Let me explain:

I think any Muslim or skeptic scholar would AGREE that:

1.MATT is from 80-85 AD(not 61 AD,like I believe)

2.MATT is by ONE AUTHOR(whoever he was) not TWO or THREE.

3.There are BASIC rules of TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

minoria said...

JESUS ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

The detail is NOT whether the HISTORICAL JESUS actually APPROVED of the end of Mosaic Law but whether the Jesus according to Matthew approved it

MATT says:

1.Jesus said the Pharisees were the correct interpreters of Mosaic Law(MATT 23:1-3)

2.The Pharisees said:"Obey the Romans,dont cause trouble"

MATT 22:21 has Jesus say:"Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's,and to God what is God's" which coincides with the OBEY CEASER command of the Pharisees.

minoria said...

3.MATT 26:26-28:

(Here I use Young's Literal transl. because some translations do NOT say "NEW covenant" but only COVENANT,but the LITERAL one does say it):

"And while they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread, and having blessed, did brake, and was giving to the disciples, and said, `Take, eat, this is my body;'

27and having taken the cup, and having given thanks, he gave to them, saying, `Drink ye of it -- all;

28for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins;"

Really,no scholar as far as I know has EVER said:"The expression New Covenant does NOT mean that Mosaic Law is no longer valid"

All say it refers to all NEW covenant meant to REPLACE the old Mosaic covenant.
For the AUTHOR MATTHEW the Jesus according to Matthew did announce the ending of Mosaic law with the creation of a New Covenant

minoria said...

BUT DONT MAINSTREAM SCHOLARS SAY MATT 5:17-19 MEANS:

"Jesus in Matthew 5 says Mosaic Law will be forever"?

They do,it is because:

For them the Historical Jesus NEVER created a New Covenant in the Last Supper

That doesnt Matt was a fraud,he simply picked up a tradition that said the historical Jesus had abolished Mosaic Law and believed it

minoria said...

But for us the Jesus of Matthew and the historical Jesus are the same

MATT got the right information,in fact,for us,MATT was really a DISCIPLE of Jesus,and wrote it.

Then why did a disciple of Jesus COPY from 90% of Mark,who never saw Jesus?

Mark,according to Papias:

1.Never knew Jesus
2.But he was the interpreter of PETER,the disciple of Jesus,and wrote information about Jesus that Peter told him

2.Acts tells us Peter and John were illiterate

minoria said...

4.So of course Peter never wrote anything but since Mark got his information from Peter the Gospel of Mark is REALLY the Gospel of Peter.

THAT is why a fellow disciple copied 90% of Mark since he was just getting information from a FELLOW DISCIPLE,another eyewitness.

minoria said...

ABOUT PINCHAS LAPIDE

ALL the JEWISH scholars on Jesus(Geza Vermes,Paula Fredriksen,Pinchas Lapide,etc) say the HISTORICAL Jesus NEVER said Mosaic law would end.He was a real Jew,Torah-abiding and Torah-loving,never said he was God(no pious Jew like Jesus would ever say it).
At the most he thought he was the Messiah but NEVER God.Those Jewish scholars ACCEPT Jesus as one of their own,a great Jewish teacher,a martyr of his people,a holy man,not the Messiah but a brilliant and inspired man of faith.

Even Orthodox rabbi SHMULEY BOTEACH accepts Jesus as one of his own.

PINCHAS LAPIDE WENT FURTHER

He was an Orthodox Jew from Germany who settled in Israel and after much research came to the conclusion that the historical Jesus had really resurrected but:

1.The historical Jesus NEVER said he was God so his resurrection was for ANOTHER REASON,political,etc.

2.But God decided to VINDICATE JESUS as a holy man by resurrecting him,Resurrection is an accepted doctrine in Judaism so that poses no problem.

Lupus el Lobo said...

Miniora,

Really,no scholar as far as I know has EVER said:"The expression New Covenant does NOT mean that Mosaic Law is no longer valid"

Lupus:

First of all, thank you for specifying the ground principles, namely that you're not actually discussing authenticity.
In regard to the above statement, my understanding is that there is and has been a lively discussion within Christianity and also among Scholars exactly to what extent Pauline Christianity abrogates the Mosaic Law. We've seen during the course of history that the Church has upheld many Old Testament laws. These laws have also been the basis for criminal law in Christian countries. The problem isn't really what the holy texts say but how much unclarity they contain in terms of how much leeway they provide for different interpretations. This leeway could be a blessing but probably not when it comes to basic theological tenents such as the divinity of Christ, the exact nature of the trinity and the issue we're discussing now.
Another thing that annoys me with you is that you're very quick to point out that the violence commited by muslims always somehow can be traced back to Islam.
When it comes to the actions of Christians, you use an entirely different standard. This standard doesn't make sense in the light of the very violent history of Christianity. You can't dismiss those Christians as non-Christians solely on the basis of your interpretation of the Bible. An interpretation that historically speaking is a fairly new one.
Minoria why do you hang out at blogs that use very inflammatory language about muslims and islam if as you say the bible says you should follow the golden rule?
I've never seen you rebuke anyone on answeringmuslims for instance.
I'm fed up with the hypocricity among many fundie Christians.

RefutingActs17 said...

Minoria,

I invite you to Islam. Just how much more Minoria? How much longer? Insh'Allah I hope you'll make the right decision soon.

Fee Aman Allah

minoria said...

Hello Lupus:

Yous stated:

"In regard to the above statement, my understanding is that there is and has been a lively discussion within Christianity and also among Scholars exactly to what extent Pauline Christianity abrogates the Mosaic Law.

We've seen during the course of history that the Church has upheld many Old Testament laws. These laws have also been the basis for criminal law in Christian countries."

Few people actually argue Paul ever meant anything other that there had been a replacement of Mosaic Law by a New Covenant.

It is like arguing(in the case of DUNN),that Paul did not believe Jesus was God

minoria said...

A bit of clarification

Jewish rabbis say the essence of Mosaic Law is "love your neighbor like yourself.

In that sense the law is eternal.There is one thing you should know,because of that Christianity continues with the essence.

What is the essence?

Form what is in the NT it is 9 of the 10 commandments of Mosaic law

The exception is the Sabbath,it is not observed

ANOTHER PROOF PAUL WAS TALKING ABOUT REAL REPALCEMENT

The Sabbath is not considered obligatory by Paul.It was the holiest day of the week,he accepted Sunday as a Day of Worship

minoria said...

Killing Witches

There is a law in Mosaic Law that says to kill a witch.The Catholic Church and some Protestant ones used it to kill to kill 50,000 people in 300 years(1450-1750).

SOme 100,000 were accused,50% convicted of which 75% were women and 25% men.

It was totally contrary to the Golden Rule.

minoria said...

You also stated:

"Another thing that annoys me with you is that you're very quick to point out that the violence commited by muslims always somehow can be traced back to Islam."

If a text like the Koran has the Golden Rule(though vaguely,not very explicitely,it's not stated in an axiomatic way) but does not elevate it to the highest level then there is the source for problems in the future.

minoria said...

"When it comes to the actions of Christians, you use an entirely different standard. This standard doesn't make sense in the light of the very violent history of Christianity.

You can't dismiss those Christians as non-Christians solely on the basis of your interpretation of the Bible. An interpretation that historically speaking is a fairly new one."

What do you mean it is a new interpretation?I gave the texts themselves and the definition of the text.Paul defined what he meant by AGAPE (love).The others didnt because it didnt need to be interpreted.

How are you going to reintepret "Hate your enemies?.You dont have to give a definition of the word hate.One knows what such words mean.

minoria said...

"Minoria why do you hang out at blogs that use very inflammatory language about muslims and islam if as you say the bible says you should follow the golden rule?
I've never seen you rebuke anyone on answeringmuslims for instance.
I'm fed up with the hypocricity among many fundie Christians."

The inflammatory language in in reference to Islam is inflammatory language in reference to a set of ideas,like with Communism,Capitalism,etc

If one says Communism/Capitalism is evil,the worst thing in the world you are not referring to people

minoria said...

In reference to Muslims it is understood it is about the Muslims who do the action to which the person refers to,not literally all the Muslims in the world.

If you say:"Muslims are with Ben Laden" it is understood you are talking about those specific ones who are,not every single Muslim.

minoria said...

Here is where Paul talks of holy days,by the context he is talking about CHRISTIANS

Rom 14:1-5:

"Welcome those who are weak in faith, but do not argue with them about their personal opinions.

2 Some people's faith allows them to eat anything, but the person who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables.3

The person who will eat anything is not to despise the one who doesn't; while the one who eats only vegetables is not to pass judgment on the one who will eat anything; for God has accepted that person

.4 Who are you to judge the servants of someone else? It is their own Master who will decide whether they succeed or fail. And they will succeed, because the Lord is able to make them succeed.


5 Some people think that a certain day is more important than other days, while others think that all days are the same.

We each should firmly make up our own minds.

6 Those who think highly of a certain day do so in honor of the Lord; those who will eat anything do so in honor of the Lord, because they give thanks to God for the food.

Those who refuse to eat certain things do so in honor of the Lord, and they give thanks to God."

Lupus el Lobo said...

Minoria said:

The inflammatory language in in reference to Islam is inflammatory language in reference to a set of ideas,like with Communism,Capitalism,etc

If one says Communism/Capitalism is evil,the worst thing in the world you are not referring to people.

You only prove my point. What you call the golden rule is so vague that you can bend it to suit your purposes. You can criticize Islam but what's going on JihadWatch and answeringmuslims is beyond that. Moreover, if I ask you whether you would accept the kind of language your sort uses (against islam) against Christianity you would probably say yes. That only shows the weakness of what you call the golden rule. Because the point of departure is what you yourself would like to be done to you. If you're indoctrinated enough you can convince yourself that you would've liked to be treated in all kinds of ways.

RefutingActs17

I wouldn't hold my breath that minoria becomes a muslim. He or She has two faces one here and another in other sites where she never rebukes any of the redneck fundies who insult muslims. Although I haven't seen Minoria use that language himself/herself, he/she actually agrees with the type of language used by for instance providing examples and arguments to support various comments.

minoria said...

Hello Lupus:

A bit on the Golden Rule.You say it is so vague.It is just a general idea but...out of that general idea the West formulated specifics.They are:

The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man of the French Revolution and the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights

1.Freedom of Speech(including the press and media)
2.Freedom of Assembly(peaceful)
3.Freedom of Religion(to convert,to leave a certain religion)
4.Freedom not to be discriminated because of race,color,religion,ethnicity,etc.

The Golden Rule and the West

It was NOT invented by Jesus nor the West,it had appeared in other cultures before.

But Greek and Roman philosophers have enunciated it.So it is an indigenous idea of the West but with the acceptance of Jesus it was elevated to a divine order.

I am saying this because I dont want you to think I affirm the Golden Rule was invented by the West or by Jesus.The great contribution of the West has been its specific elaborations of it and declaring them universal

I suspect that the idea of saying they are universal is unconsciously due to the fact that in earlier times it was considered the Law of God,a divine order

Lupus el Lobo said...

Minoria:

So you support liberal values, such as Gay rights, freedom of expression including pornography?

Did the Golden Rule give rise to all liberal values or just some that you think sound good?

Exactly how did you establish the link between Christianity and liberal values?

So in this time and age these values are in vogue and maybe 100 years from now other values are in vogue. If so we will find christians then who would claim that also such values are inspired by Christianity ad infinitum?

man with desire said...

Muslims usually have strong prejudices and objections against the message of the Gospel, especially on such matters as the reliability of the Bible and the status of Jesus, which may prevent them from receiving the Gospel.
They think that the Bible is not in its original form but it has been changed and twisted in the past, and also the Koran has displaced the Bible. As comes to Jesus, they think he did not die on the cross, that he is not the Son of God or in any way equal with God; in other words, they deny all these basic principles of faith associated with Jesus. They also have other misconceptions (among other things, they connect Christianity with the Western world), and for that reason they do not want in any way to study this matter more closely, which is regrettable.
The most common objections that Muslims can have are dealt with below. We will especially try to answer these questions with the help of the Bible but we also use the holy book of the Muslims, the Koran. The issues that we are going to deal with are certainly important for everyone.

http://www.jariiivanainen.net/Islam_and_Jesus.html

http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/thesonofhamas.html

Lupus el Lobo said...

man said:

We will especially try to answer these questions with the help of the Bible

Lupus said:

LOL