Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

John, Mary and Jesus in the Qur'an. Surah Maryam

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


"The Law According to Jesus and Paul"


What Jesus and Paul sought was not to reject or replace Torah with a so-called “greater” law, labeled by Paul the Law of faith. Rather, what they both sought to do was radically redefine and reinterpret Torah through a relational hermeneutic, maintaining that the whole of Torah was summed up in the command to love God and others (e.g. Matt 7:12; 12:7; 22:37-40; Luke 6:36; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14).

They further argued that the Old Covenant, though good, was terribly inadequate, that Torah could not be fulfilled through Torah itself because it could not produce the obedience it demanded, and that another law – that is, another principle – was therefore necessary in coming along side Torah to produce obedience. That principle is the Law of faith. Faith does not usurp the law in Paul’s mind; on the contrary it establishes the law so that what was previously impossible is now possible; what was before a heavy burden and a futile grasping at the wind is now a short reach and a light load (Rom 3:31; 8:3-4). The self-proclaimed purpose of Paul’s Gospel was to produce, through faith, that which the ambitious observance of Torah could never by itself produce, namely obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:18).


matthartke.wordpress.com...




posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by logical7
 


"The Law According to Jesus and Paul"


What Jesus and Paul sought was not to reject or replace Torah with a so-called “greater” law, labeled by Paul the Law of faith. Rather, what they both sought to do was radically redefine and reinterpret Torah through a relational hermeneutic, maintaining that the whole of Torah was summed up in the command to love God and others (e.g. Matt 7:12; 12:7; 22:37-40; Luke 6:36; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14).

They further argued that the Old Covenant, though good, was terribly inadequate, that Torah could not be fulfilled through Torah itself because it could not produce the obedience it demanded, and that another law – that is, another principle – was therefore necessary in coming along side Torah to produce obedience. That principle is the Law of faith. Faith does not usurp the law in Paul’s mind; on the contrary it establishes the law so that what was previously impossible is now possible; what was before a heavy burden and a futile grasping at the wind is now a short reach and a light load (Rom 3:31; 8:3-4). The self-proclaimed purpose of Paul’s Gospel was to produce, through faith, that which the ambitious observance of Torah could never by itself produce, namely obedience (Rom 1:5; 15:18).


matthartke.wordpress.com...


is that the best you can do?
The excerpt says nothing other than a false image to authenticate paul.
Jesus pbuh is a jew and talking about holding jewish law.
If you believe in Jesus then naturally you obey his laws(jewish)
what paul thinks is not applicable, he just wanted numbers, woùld have agreed that incest is ok if a family did it and he wanted them to convert!!



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Go back and review what Jesus said about FAITH and then you'll realize that Paul didn't teach anything different than what Jesus did. The only laws you ever heard Jesus mentioning had to do with the 10 commandments, he could have cared less about all the others and Paul repeated the same ones Jesus did.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by logical7
 


Go back and review what Jesus said about FAITH and then you'll realize that Paul didn't teach anything different than what Jesus did. The only laws you ever heard Jesus mentioning had to do with the 10 commandments, he could have cared less about all the others and Paul repeated the same ones Jesus did.

"he could have cared less"?!! Isn't that your opinion?
Here again what he says

The Fulfillment of the Law

17 “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.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
smallest letter, not the least stroke of a
pen, will by any means disappear from
the Law until everything is
accomplished.

19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of
these commands and teaches others
accordingly will be called least in the
kingdom of heaven,
but whoever
practices and teaches these
commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

just because paul and later the church created an anti-christ trend, it doesn't mean it became acceptable now!
Paul said gentiles don't come under the law! Why? Don't they believe the same God as that of paul(jew)

Jesus pbuh said not to lust with eyes, now the whole christian countries operate on consumerism based on it!
God's covenant doesn't stay with people who just pay lip service!



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
look at it this way, why is there so much ambiguity in Bible?

look at it this way, why is there so much ambiguity .. so much historical error .. so many contradictions in the Qur'an??



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by logical7
look at it this way, why is there so much ambiguity in Bible?

look at it this way, why is there so much ambiguity .. so much historical error .. so many contradictions in the Qur'an??

so you agree that none is better and we both follow a book that can be equally wrong. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
so you agree that none is better and we both follow a book that can be equally wrong.

WHY follow anything that is totally and completely full of errors and contradictions?
God doesn't make errors .. He doesn't contradict Himself.
Obviously the Old Testament and the Qu'ran are not from God.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by logical7
so you agree that none is better and we both follow a book that can be equally wrong.

WHY follow anything that is totally and completely full of errors and contradictions?
God doesn't make errors .. He doesn't contradict Himself.
Obviously the Old Testament and the Qu'ran are not from God.

that made me laugh

ok,
so OT is not from God yet it has prophecies that identify Jesus pbuh as Messiah!
For all the justifications of Jesus pbuh being god OT is needed.
Paul and church make all their claims by using OT.
I would like some intellectual integrity please. Not much to ask, is it?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


In referencing Matthew 5:17-19 only, you ended up leaving off the exact commandments that Jesus was talking about. He discussed them immediately thereafter. Read the rest of the chapter.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by logical7
 


In referencing Matthew 5:17-19 only, you ended up leaving off the exact commandments that Jesus was talking about. He discussed them immediately thereafter. Read the rest of the chapter.

I read them and couldn't agree more to it. Thats my question to you Dee, are christians following what Jesus pbuh said? Or have thrown it away as they have been told that its not needed anymore? Because they have been washed clean by blood of Christ!!
Jesus Christ taught a way of life, simple, effective and amazing! The Church turned it into an exclusive club with a promise of a free pass to Heaven no matter how the person lives the life!
Its christians who are backing their secular governments to kill millions, do you think Christ wants any of this?
Will he agree to send an innocent muslim kid/woman/man to hell and send their killer who is christian to heaven?!!



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


I think you may have been a little misinformed about the Christian religion.

In no way did "grace by faith" exclude the 10 commandments. The Bible tells us that faithful followers will naturally follow them. Does that mean if I tell a lie I'm going straight to hell? No. That's why Jesus and his disciples taught repentance. Otherwise, we'd all be passed the point of salvation and there would be no use trying. By the way, that doesn't condone lying either. Repentance is a heart felt acknowledgement of wrong doing.

As far as how governments run their military, I'm not privy to the same information they have, but I'm sure they will be judged accordingly, like everyone else.

edit on 11-3-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Repentance is good. That also means without it the sins still stay even for christians.

You mean that unrepenting christians who broke the 10 commandments may go to hell?

Muslims believe this, nobody has exclusive claim to Heaven, anyone who is good will go, anyone who is extremely bad will not. Their lip service will not help in anyway.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 





You mean that unrepenting christians who broke the 10 commandments may go to hell?


I have a hard time believing that a true Christian wouldn't feel remorseful for sinning, so with that in mind, I think their ability to enter into heaven would be questionable. As for hell and what all we go through after we die and before we're judged, I'm going to reserve my own judgement on that one. I'm still trying to work out the details of the Millennium and who all's going to be there first.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



So what if it was alien to the Jews?? Just because the Jews were doing things a certain way didn't mean they got it right.


It can also be said "So what if Christians believed Jesus was God for 500 years. It doesn't mean they got it right." Which IS what happened.

The evidence is that Jesus' own religion was purely monotheistic. In that religion, there was a strong distinction between God and man. There was no concept of "fully man / fully God"... which is a later Christian invention. What happened in the case of Christianity was that people usurped the monotheistic Israelite religion and modified it, turning man into God and vice versa.



For example .. the Jews were all upset that Jesus performed a miracle on the Sabbath. They said He was breaking the laws of God. Jesus, being God incarnate, straightened them out and told them that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

Jesus being a man sent by God straightened them out. He was given authority by God to revise the law. Which is why he eliminated unnecessary laws of the Pharisees and tightened the law in other matters. For example, he upgraded the definition of adultery to include even looking at a woman with lust.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Double post. Please delete.
edit on 11-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Scorpie


There was no concept of "fully man / fully God"... which is a later Christian invention.


That's your problem in a nutshell. Was this crucial insight invented or discovered? Yet another reason why you can't confine the investigation to a short list of books assembled for a different purpose, plus one other book composed centuries later by a hostile critic of Christianity.


What happened in the case of Christianity was that people usurped the monotheistic Israelite religion


Actually, Jesus' native religion ceased to exist in 70 CE when the Second Temple was destroyed as a casualty of war. Christians had nothing to do with that. Interestingly, both continuous survivals of Jesus' religion, Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism, were heavily Pharisaic, and both are monotheistic.

Since you're back in the thread, allow me to draw your attention to some questions that were directed to you a few days ago, before you left us for a while, and which remain unanswered:

Does Islam teach that a woman, or some part of her body, is unfit for God to be present there? Who created these places which are unfit for God's presence?



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





Does Islam teach that a woman, or some part of her body, is unfit for God to be present there? Who created these places which are unfit for God's presence?

let me answer you on this, i hope Sc0rpie will also get back or just agree with me,

Islam teaches that God is not in His creation as other religions claim.
That rules out God being in/in between any body parts of a woman or a man.
God is close to everyone, in fact Qur'an says He is closer than our jugular vein. He is all seeing, all hearing.

Now i'l like to ask you if you think its possible for god to be born to a woman, would you equally debate for hindu concept of god incarnates and that it happened many times rather than just once as christians claim?
Hope you don't get your agnostic shield up again.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



i hope Sc0rpie will also get back or just agree with me,


I've been meaning to respond to eightbits... but been a little busy all day.
So far, I've just been making short 2-3 line posts.



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
logical7


Now i'l like to ask you if you think its possible for god to be born to a woman, ...


Of course. As my fellow cultural Christian William Blake points out, “Eternity is in love with the productions of time.” In a more orthodox Christian view, man and woman are made in the image of God. Surely if the world is good enough for God to pronounce it good, and one would expect it to be good, coming from such a maker, then God wouldn't feel out of place here as a human being. He ordained how humans are born; it would be odd if he has any problem with it.


would you equally debate for hindu concept of god incarnates and that it happened many times rather than just once as christians claim?


Which concept? The one where a god uses a human-appearing avatar? That has nothing to do with anything any Nicene Christian might propose about Jesus. Krishna has more in common with Isa (no father) than with Jesus (two parents). And what am I to "debate" about it? That it is logically coherent within the premises of the religion in question? So far as I know, it is. And with whom am I to debate it?



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





Of course. As my fellow cultural Christian William Blake points out, “Eternity is in love with the productions of time.” In a more orthodox Christian view, man and woman are made in the image of God. Surely if the world is good enough for God to pronounce it good, and one would expect it to be good, coming from such a maker, then God wouldn't feel out of place here as a human being. He ordained how humans are born; it would be odd if he has any problem with it.

that actually contradicts the christian idea of God not standing/tolerating sin.
1)If God is born through a woman, she must then be sinless too, if not then God is fine to stay in the womb and then be born of a sinning woman.
2)If God is able to be among sinner on earth then whats the problem to do the same in Heaven. Why the dying to wash the sins so that christians can stand in the Glory of God?






top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join