Their Torah states specifically that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
The problem in this thread is whether Christianity and Islam are compatible. It's a whole 'nother thread why Jews don't read their scriptures the way
Protestants do. Also, not being Protestants helps explain why they evidently don't much care what Goyim
think about how they should practice
Always interesting to chat with you, too.
The thing is, interestingly enough, for all three of these perspectives, you'll find people who self-identify as Christians (and not muslims)
on either side of the fence.
If a person wants to call themselves "Christian" or "Muslim," then that's all the same to me. But, most people mean something by "Christian" or
Muslim," otherwise there would be no point in our trying to use words to communicate. What most people mean by each of those terms renders the terms
incompatible with each other.
I find it odd when people try to take away from Jesus's words by using the excuse "Oh, he was just quoting someone".
It's not an excuse. He chose those words, he said them, so what was he trying to express? It's not the strangest thing in the world to try to
understand what somebody is trying to express by reading the scene without the quoted matter, to see what's different. What's different is the quality
of his interaction with the Magdalene, night and day, with five little words, whose meaning isn't that
they are quoted, but what
are quoted from.
Christianity is different from other religions because its sacred text is supposed to tell a story of an actual man living an actual life. Fine, this
man's job is preaching, and so if the scene is him giving a sermon, then read the sermon to learn his theology or whatever his subject is. But if the
man is talking to a single person whom he knows well, and whom he isn't going to see again for a long time... figure maybe he isn't going to give a
sermon. Nobody else would, why would he?
Abandonment on the cross: "Oh, he's not calling to his God (as a non-God), he's teaching people about praying to God, by quoting from the
Not "the Psalms," Psalm 22, whose opening he recites while he is suffocating to death under his own weight, and must tear his flesh for every breath
he manages to secure. So, maybe he cuts down on the chit-chat. I suppose he does teach people how to pray there, but the point of the Psalm is that it
is an invictus
narrative. This is not defeat, even though it looks that way.
Anyway, as I said in my post, I am not denying you whatever reading of whatever pericope you like. What I object to is to say that somebody else's
reading is wrong, when it is amply defensible, especially when proposed alternative readings run counter to the obvious intentions of the author. But
even then, if that's the way you want to read something, then that's fine
I don't know about NO evidence, otherwise the legend would never have come about.
There's enough evidence for Patrick that I think it is more likely than not he lived. (I am Irish, so yes, I have thought about this... Brigid is a
different matter.) He is the author of a memoir and some liturgical items, plausibly authentic. Unfortunately, stories stick to heroic figures. This
particular story is attested only very recently, found nowhere in writing until the 18th Century (Patrick died in the Fifth), when noted by Caleb
Threlkeld as the backstory for a custom of interrupting Lenten austerity with a drinking game called "drowning the shamrock," on St Patrick's Day.
That's what "no evidence" looks like.
However, I'm not sure you can really conflate the trinitarian concept of God with the Triple goddesses (even more removed from pure monotheism
than traditional Christianity) they had in Ireland at that time.
I don't know that I did comment on Irish "Triple Goddesses," although of course the Irish had that sort of thing, too.
The Trinity is one god, not three, and so there isn't much connection between the Christian Trinity and polytheist "triple god(desse)s" in general. If
having triple gods or goddesses was the key, then all the Indo-European pagans would have joined up in Christianity, on national scale, bloodlessly on
both sides. We both know that isn't what happened.
I suppose a point of common ground is that both Muslims and Christians worship the Father.
edit on 26-3-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)