Just what is going on in the world!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

I can provide many more if you like!

See that is where you are wrong. The Old Testament is more of a History lesson in relation to the New - only included as a historical reference for Christianity. The New Testament completely replaces the Old in every shape and form. You should know this, and your quotes you provided in the New Testament do not condone those older Jewish teachings. They are mearly provided as a way to see how things were.

Your quotes also provide no bearing on the subject. Please do better, otherwise, I consider it a closed subject.

-S

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Enigma

As a die hard "West Wing" fan, this conversation of how we interpret various versions of the bible immediatly made me think of this classic scene from the show...
The scene finds the president stopping in on a White House gathering of radio talk personalities. As Bartlet struggles though a speech extolling the gabbers’ contributions to the airwaves, Bartlet is distracted by the sight of a Dr. Laura-like radio psychologist seated nearby.


President Josiah Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

[.....}

hehe, thats funny.

It makes a good point too. The Bible tells Christians to do these things, but obviously all those who have any sense of morality do not.
The qu'ran tells Muslims to do equally terrible things and likewise; all those who have any sense of morality do not.

The reason we have Islamic religiously motivated terrorists, but few christian religiously motivated terrorists, is not because the Qu'ran encourages murder more than Bible does. The reasons are cultural and political.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

hehe, thats funny.

It makes a good point too. The Bible tells Christians to do these things, but obviously all those who have any sense of morality do not. The qu'ran tells Muslims to do equally terrible things and likewise; all those who have any sense of morality do not.

The reason we have Islamic religiously motivated terrorists, but few christian religiously motivated terrorists, is not because the Qu'ran encourages murder more than Bible does. The reasons are cultural and political.

It does not. Please get your facts straight.

-S

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

See that is where you are wrong. The Old Testament is more of a History lesson in relation to the New. - only included as a historical reference for Christianity.

Where in the bible does it say that?
This is a personal interpretation of the bible.

"there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

The New Testament completely replaces the Old in every shape and form.

Not according to the bible:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You should know this, and your quotes you provided in the New Testament do not condone those older Jewish teachings. They are mearly provided as a way to see how things were.

They do not need to condone them at all! They fully support them!

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Your quotes also provide no bearing on the subject. Please do better, otherwise, I consider it a closed subject.

My quotes where a reply to this quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Please enlighten us. I do not know of a passage that requires me or anyone else to go out and kill Muslims if one were Christian. Need I repost the relevant passages from the Quran?

In what way do bible passages about the killing of people who are of different religions not have a bearing on the subject?

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Please do better, otherwise, I consider it a closed subject.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.....?


*edit*

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

It does not. Please get your facts straight.

In what way does it not?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

This is a personal interpretation of the bible.

Not at all. All of Christianity is based on the New Testament (only) - yet you challenge that belief.

Anyway, yes it is written that the old is just that - the old:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8:13

That's black and white enough for you? I'm sure you will say, some people still practice the old - you'd be right - the Jewish people still do.

In what way do bible passages about the killing of people who are of different religions not have a bearing on the subject?

When they don't talk about people killing people. Duh!

I'm not sure what you mean by this.....?

See below


*edit*

In what way does it not?

Because you quote the old, which is based on the Jewish religion, not Christianity to make your points.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Not at all. All of Christianity is based on the New Testament (only) - yet you challenge that belief.

If this is not a personal interpretation of the bible then show me where it says this in the bible.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Anyway, yes it is written that the old is just that - the old:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8:13

That's black and white enough for you?

The New covenant is not the same as the new testement and the old covenant is not the same as the old testement.
They are totaly diffrent things!
A covenant is a agreement with god.

The old testement contains sevral covenants. (covenant of Lot, covenant of Noah, covenant of David, etc), but the old testement is not a covenant it's self. Therefore Hebrews 8:13 is irrelivent.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

The New covenant is not the same as the new testement and the old covenant is not the same as the old testement.
They are totaly diffrent things!
A covenant is a agreement with god.

The old testement contains sevral covenants. (covenant of Lot, covenant of Noah, covenant of David, etc), but the old testement is not a covenant it's self. Therefore Hebrews 8:13 is irrelivent.

Thanks - you just showed us what you understand about Christianity.

-S

PS. A little clue - You're wrong!

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Thanks - you just showed us what you understand about Christianity.

-S

PS. A little clue - You're wrong!

Are you sure?
In what way?

My refrances are my 14 years as a Christian in the Church of England and:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers..._covenant.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28biblical%29
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStu...=1&language=en

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

Are you sure?
In what way?

My refrances are my 14 years as a Christian in the Church of England and:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers..._covenant.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28biblical%29
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStu...=1&language=en

Allright - I am not sure I have the energy to get into this (can you tell I am avoiding it?) because I didn't sleep good last night, but lets start. I think churches sometimes say whatever they want if it can hold sway over you (hence the creation of more athiest because of this in my theory), but here is the nitty gritty first:


The Old Covenant has been Abolished and Replaced with the New Covenant
A further reading of the New Testament confirms the above interpretation. Dozens of passages throughout the books of the New Testament declare that the old covenant has been "taken away" and replaced with "a better covenant." The following are some examples:

Hebrews 10:9: …He took away the first covenant to establish the second. Hebrews 8:13: In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 7:18-19: A former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect; but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Hebrews 8:6-7: Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better than the old covenant, since it is founded on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Hebrews 7:22: This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
Hebrews 9:15: He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant…
Galatians 3:13: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law.
Colossians 2:14: Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us, he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
2 Corinthians 3:5-6: …our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Romans 7:4-6: Therefore, you also have become dead to the law through Christ… Now that we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
John 1:17: For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Luke 16:16: The law and the prophets reigned until the time of John: and since that time, the kingdom of God is preached, and every man strives to go in.

From a review of the above verses, we see that the first covenant has been “taken away,” that it has “become obsolete,” that it has been “annulled,” and that it has “vanished away.” On the other hand, the new covenant is “a better covenant,” it is “much more excellent than the old,” and it provides a “better hope.”
Jesus Specifically Abolished and Broke Several Mosaic Laws
It has already been shown that Jesus abolished the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye:”

Matthew 5:38–39: You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

Likewise, Jesus also abolished and broke several other Mosaic Laws. Provided below are several examples of instances where Jesus either spoke or acted against the Mosaic Law.
Jesus Repealed the Law Concerning the Gathering of Food on the Sabbath
In the Old Testament, the collection of food on the Sabbath is strictly forbidden:

Exodus 16:28-29: The Lord has given you the Sabbath; therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Remain each of you in his place; let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.

In the Gospel of Mark, however, Jesus and his disciples broke this Mosaic commandment. Challenged by the Pharisees, Jesus justified their actions:

Mark 2:23-27: One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" …And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

Jesus Repealed the Law Concerning Divorce
The following is the Mosaic Law concerning divorce:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man takes a wife and marries her, if she then finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, let him then write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her, and send her out of the house.

In the same sermon in which Jesus replaced the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye,” and using similar language, Jesus also replaced the old regulation of divorce with a new one:

Matthew 5-31-32: It was also said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce." But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus Repealed the Law Concerning the Taking of Oaths
The Mosaic Law permitted the taking of oaths, so long as no one broke his oath:

Numbers 30:1-2: Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the people of Israel, saying, "This is what the Lord has commanded. If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth."

Directly after Jesus’ comments on divorce and before his comments on “eye for an eye,” Jesus replaced the Mosaic Law concerning the taking of oaths:

Matthew 5:33-37: Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn." But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all... Let what you say be simply "Yes" or "No"; anything more than this comes from evil.

Jesus Repealed the Law Concerning Adultery
In the Gospel of John, Jesus was directly confronted by a situation in which the Mosaic Law required the stoning of an adulteress. Instead of following the Mosaic Law, Jesus acted in accordance with his new ethic of love:

John 8:3-11: The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" …Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."

Conclusion
For all the faults of Moses and the laws of the old covenant, it must be remembered that they served as a preparation for the coming of Christ. In fact, Moses predicted the coming of Christ:

Acts 3:22: Moses said, “The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to Him in whatever he tells you.” If we must “listen to Him in whatever he tells” us, we must examine once again what he has told us:
Matthew 5:38–39: You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

Under the old covenant, the proper response to an enemy was to return any injury done with equal physical retaliation, “eye for an eye.” Jesus, however, asserted that although in the past “eye for an eye” had been taught as a proper response to an enemy, his followers should “not resist an evil person.” Exactly how should Christians treat their enemies? This is the next issue which must be examined. Please read The New Testament Promotes the Absolute Love of Enemies.

[Skybird]

Leturm,

Let's put some of your quote a bit back into context:

John 10,33
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

Puts it a little bit in perspective, I think.

Luke 16,17
14The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight. 16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

Puts it a little bit into perspective, I think.

As is known by now, I only consider the Gospels to be the Christian thing in Christianity, and the rest pf the bible quotes for that reason I do not pay much attention to. It is of interest for historical reasons only.

Leturm, you cannot deny the fact that there existed no Christianity before Jesus ("the Christ") appeared. There was no "Christian religion" before, there were a number of cults that related to stories of the old testament and it's tradition, but the new testament did not exist. Also, what Paul and others put into the scripture by their own interpretation of Jesus - has no real authority concerning the teaching of Jesus. Call it Paul ism, or "Letter-ism" or whatever. But Paul was not Jesus, nor was anyone else.

And finally, you quoted it yourself:

"Matthew 5,17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil.

Here Jesus gave it all a very different meaning. He said that the old law is fulfilled, and fulfilling something means to bring it to a (fulfilled) END. Something new begins. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, or the prophets, or to carry on in that tradition, because abolishing as well as keeping a tradition means to grant it an authority that Jesus rejected with determination. And if you get a feeling for it, you realise that the new thing that began was that Jesus was transcending the old meaning of words like "God" and "Father", using the same old vocabulary - but in a totally new and different meaning. He moved beyond the old word-believing conception of belief and pointed at things beyond the original meaning for these words - but the word itself is not the goal he pointed at, where as before, it very much was. Before Jesus, you had a faith basing on personal cult around an idol ("God" as a separate being), after Jesus, you had a faith in the meaning of trust into the devine essence of existence that all existence is emvbedded into, embraced by, is caused and developed thorugh it. the "perosnal" quality, the idol, is no longer there, is transcended. This is the revolution, the glad tiding - the funeral of the old patriarchalic, tyrannic vulcan gods. If you read the gospels carefully, and not in a word-believing state of mind, you relaize that jesus very much was aware of the risk of being m isunderstood when putting things into words. But he had no other words availöable than those that formed the language of his time. - that is why both in Zen and in principle inchristian mystic as well a tradition is propagated that does not depend on words and scriptures. Both try to point at that you necessarily miss reality if you try to fix it in words. It's like trying to grab water, or focue on a single wave - but the river always is in flow, their is not a single wave ever staying in a constant form, shape, condition. nor solid forms - only movement.

„Man shall see God in all things, and shall accustom his soul to always see God in his soul, in his striving, and in his love. Take care of how you are turned towards God when you are in the church, or in your cabin: keep up the same mood and carry it amongst the crowd, the hustle and the dissimilarity. [...] In all your works you shall have a steady soul, and a steady confidence, and a steady love for God. If you were that serene, no one could hinder you to be aware of God’s presence at all times.“ (Meister Eckhart)[1]
(my faulty translation)

„The One Essence that could be known,

Is not the Essence of the Unknowable.

The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires means to learn the invisible inside.
Acting with desires means to stay by the limited outside.
All-the-One and all-the-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder

Is the gate to all understanding.” (Lao Tse)

(my translation from my new German interpretation)

You said: "It makes a good point too. The Bible tells Christians to do these things, but obviously all those who have any sense of morality do not. The qu'ran tells Muslims to do equally terrible things and likewise; all those who have any sense of morality do not."

Can you show us please where Jesus gave orders and demanded thing like Muhammad did? I refer to the Islam-essay I had linked to above. Could you find equivalents in Jesus' (or Buddha's) teachings? where Muhammad ordered violence, wars of attack, raids, murder, and set up restriction only when he was "outgunned" (as the author put it), while lifting these restrictions again when being strong again - Jesus and Buddha not only did not authorised the use of these kinds of violence for the purpose of attack and enforced miss ionising - they also recommended to remain passive and non-violent even when becoming victim of aggression. Jesus even illustrated that by the example of his own life (and proclaimed death). Could you find that attitude in Islam scripture - anywhere? - You cannot.

If you have a sense of moral, as you defined it, you follow the teaching of Jesus. If you have a sense of morale, you violate the teaching of Muhammad, and abandon it. That simply is the essential, vital difference between Jesus and Buddha on the one side, and Al Capone and Muhammad on the other side.

What would you answer the author of that essay that I linked to? He referred to Islamic scripture and literature with far more expertise than I can call my own, and shows the many errors in the comments of that Muslim commentator he was taking on. Could you comment on his remarks and counter them - or do you pick the easy way and ignore them altogether?

Or would you like to try your luck with some apostates of Islam, that urges Westerners so desperately to ban their self-deceiving naivety and see the harsh face of it, a face that is hostile to all and everything that is not Islam itself? The essay links to according sites, and there are more around d the web. What do you answer those ex-Muslims that left that club under serious difficulties and threats for their lives? are they wrong in their criticism? You say Westwern reloigion and Islam compares, are two of a same kind, in a way. They urge you that exactly this is not true. Some of them risk their lifes for that conviction they found. I talked two Muslims into leaving islam, and it came at a heavy priuce for them, their families almost broke with them. I do not know what paths two other have choosen in whom I raised at least some serious doubt. these apostates are rsiking much. Do you have the nerve to tell them that they are wrong, and that you know Islam better than they themselves while they had to give it such painful considerations? they live under threats and getting cursed by their people - and you telling them Islam is not so harmful at all?

In Buddhism, you do not need to gain any club membership. In modern churches, the young human being born must be made a member of Christianity by a ritual, it is not automatically like that, and parents can even leave it to the kid to grow up and then decide itself what it wants to choose and follow. - In Islam, you are automatically being born as a Muslim if your father and mother are Muslim, and you are forbidden by death penalty to ever leave it. Your fate is sealed the moment you mom and dad laid down together. You are not getting asked, you have no choice - you get decided. that is humiliating, and degrading, and inhumane. It turns you effectively into a thing, without the right to decide yourself. A slave. Islam POSSESSES you. that (and it's absolute intolerance for all that is not Islam) is why I call it totalitarian . - By that ruling, Muhammad made sure that future generations still would follow his authority, and that every opposition to Muhammad could be brandmarked as heresy and thus getting burned out with sword and fire without people daring to ask questions.

I would really like to see what you have to say on the many, many examples the author of the essay above is giving. He is no blind fanatic, and obviously knows very well what he is talking about. I know some of the literature he lists at the end, at least by name, I know where to sort in some of the authors. This is far more competence on display than what I can show up with. Read it, and let us know your thoughts about it.

[Penelope_Grey]

See kids... this is why Mummy and Daddy don't want you studying RE in school! :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

See kids... this is why Mummy and Daddy don't want you studying RE in school! :rotfl:

Lost me? THis is just a misunderstanding is all. Why teach anything at that rate since some texts are much more complicated in school? I've seen some!

-S

[Penelope_Grey]

whoa... whoa whoa... as you US peeps say... time out! LOL I was just cracking a joke.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

[....]

Arrrgh! Ive just spend the last 2.5+ hours researching and writing a reply and then I accidentally closed the Browser window.

I'll try and re-writing it when my moral is a bit higher.

[Skybird]

I know that too well! I feel with you, Letum. Two out of three times I leave it all alone in such cases. Sometimes the cosmos is mean to you. Mean and dirty.