You know i've looked at stoning in islamic scriptures. God's book doesn't mention anything about stoning other people. While i agree punishments are needed for adultery and forcination, the Quran clearly says lashing is the method, not stoning. If there's hadiths that contradict the Quran, then it is rejected (I'm sure many of you know that). But doesn't Deuteronomy mention stoning? After all, it is Jesus' first revelation to Moses isn't it?
The brutality of Islam is undenable. And yet the those in the west like an ostrach continue to bury their head in the sand. Why does not the state controlled media ever do an expose on the real Islam. Opps silly question they are to busy exposing those nasty Christians like Sarah Palin
Is it just me, or are the Muslim responses totally predictable? The steps seem to always include:
(1) Denying a clear teaching of Islam, often by pretending that the Qur'an is the only source of Islamic law; and
(2) Attacking Christianity by pretending that Christians are called to follow the Mosaic law in the world today.
So we have deception at both levels.
Now WomanForTruth, are you saying that if Muhammad commanded his followers to stone adulterers, he violated the Qur'an? (Note: The traditional Islamic interpretation is that the 100 lashes refers to fornicators. Caliph Umar said that the verse of stoning was revealed as part of the Qur'an. Muslims simply left it out later.)
Would you agree that if I can provide numerous, authentic chains of transmission from your most reliable ahadith, you would be forced to conclude either (a) Muhammad violated the Qur'an and therefore committed murder, or (b) your most trusted sources are unreliable, and therefore you can't really know anything about Muhammad?
My dear woman for truth, the verses of stonning as well as the breath feeding verse are 2 verses from the Koran the domestic animal ate them under the bed of Aisha, when your prophet is dead, this is not a joke, this is truth from Sahih Muslim, and Bokhari, said by Aisha herself. Don't forget that your prophet of doon said that you must take the half of your religion from her. it is true the verse of stonning does not exist in the today's Koran-wich is supposed to be preserved in the preserved barre in heaven-but its law is still existing by islamic jurisprudence and scholars, stunning still exist in the SHARIA my dear, it seems that you don't know your beloved religion very well, you must take some reenforcement lessons in it.
"If there's hadiths that contradict the Quran, then it is rejected (I'm sure many of you know that)."
No we dont know that .. we know that islam has the greatest concept of abrogation and contrdictions !!!
you have many verses in quran that contradicts each other ... like drinking wine !! so it is not that simple to say whatever contradicts the quran.. cause hequran itself is the full of contradictions.
Now if we go with what you are saying, lets just follow what the quran is saying, then are you going to follow the quran, where the prophet of islam didnt follow the quran's law !!!! ironic enough that muslims are more abiding to quran rules that theprophet of islam himself ... reminding me that he married more than four, where the quran clearly staed FOUR !!!
honestly, that makes everyone asking, what is the value of having the quran, if the prophet didnt follow it ?!! and if it is a book just full of abrogations ?!
"But doesn't Deuteronomy mention stoning? After all, it is Jesus' first revelation to Moses isn't it?"
continue reading the bibe.. the revelations didnt stop at deutonomy ...if you kept reading you will find this in Mattew:
{Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.}
then keep reading, and you will read this in John:
Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her?
6 And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
9 And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst.
10 And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee?
11 And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.
... the answer is crystal clear I think.. you are just ryingto ignore Jesus teaching , as if there was no need for him to come to our world !!!
Those pictures are overwhelming. Muslims often make up these claims of adultery or koranic desicration in order to murder religious minorities or moderates.
Chapter# 22, Book 8, Number 3371 Book 8, Number 3372 Book 8, Number 3383 Book 8, Number 3384 The above references show that prophet's warriors were indulged in adultery with permission from prophet. So what is this drama of stoning about.
Should we assume that when u r in position of power the rules are different. Qur'an 4:23 mentions sex outside wedlock isnt it adultery too.
In the light of the above hadith and quran verses what is the correct message?
All right, Jon. I'm a bit out of patience for your Islamic anti-Israel bashing. When there's a point to be made about Israel, I have no problem with you or any other Muslim making it, whether I agree with you or not. But when we're trying to have a meaningful discussion about something (e.g. the spread of Sharia), and you turn every topic into an attack on Israel or the U.S., it gets old. You're adding nothing to this blog except distraction. I feel a block coming on if you can't focus on a point for more than five seconds.
Since you keep talking about "blowback," are you suggesting that Muslims stone adulterers, as this thread is about, because the Great Satan, i.e. secular America, has backed or aided the Little Satan's play?
Try and forget your agenda for a minute. Even if there is a point to blowback, surely it isn't a one-size fits all explanation to every problem in the world.
from ur posts its obvious that u left sth (christianity) u have no clue abt and also entered sth (islam) u also have no clue abt. i would honestly suggest u that u start studying both religions.
Hi WomanForTruth101 (or Ali)... you habe been berie silente in the latter posts... I imagine you can't denie whate has been presented... iff this is the case you shloulde habe been silenced ounce again since islam do teaches this and the Bible does not... we habe shown this many times here in this blogg... don't fooll yourself...
Nationalism and religions are two different sphere in our modern world.
I come from India, a developing nation which is considered as a super power. Geographically and Demographically Its a Continent or can be classified as Sub Continent. Here each one has their own India. I Call my self as a Bombayite or Mumbaikar ( From Bombay or mumbai), whenever I has visited a foreign land.
there Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhist, Animist, Zoroastrians, Jews and other religious group in India. Our Indian Defense force is made up from people of all these group. These men and women unlike Pakis and Arabs join the Defense to protect their mother land. We call our country Mother India.
As Communal violence is also seen in our country, people from these groups fight among them selves for insane reasons.
Such dark incident still does not break the unity of my country and our defense force. I still remember Pakistani mullas, commanding Indian Muslims not to join the army as its unislamic. But this didn’t stop these brave hearts to join the army. .
American invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan is condemned by me and my country people and same with Israel occupation in Palestine.
Mr Jon. this blog is not discussing nationalism rather religion. So stick to the Topic.
Every country has hate mongers spreading violence, Zionist in Israel, VHP In India, Taliban in Pak-afghan etc.
About Palestine. I was in a conversation with Palestinian she told me to understand the situation of Palestinian as Indian under British rule ( Pre Indian Independence).
There are few muslim in my country also defending violence of islam. These men give examples of Indian Freedom fighters. Especially the armed revolutionary movement. These Mullas compare your holy Islamic terrorist with our Indian heroes.
Our Indian Heroes of UnDivided India ( as one part is called Pakistan) like Bhagat Singh, Sukh Dev, Rajguru, Ashfaqulla Khan Chandrashekar Azad were young boys who made a huge impact on the British. Unlike Islamic freedom fighter they did not kill innocent lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh
(Any Indian reader Please don’t compare such great souls with Islamic Jehadis.) I want muslim to read about Hindustan Socialist Republican Association And the Indian freedom struggle.
I know Islam doesn’t want intellectuals as intellectuals are considered as fakirs by true muslims. But I want you Palestinian to read our history.
Gandhi Please also read about Gandhi. Most muslim don’t want to read anything about Gandhi as he was a Hindu. But he was also inspired by Jesus Christ.
These is more to say about our Indian freedom struggle and this blog is not enough, my friend.
I can see your point to some degree, David. My view is that the causes are the main thing and I think I'm the only one talking about them, but on the other hand I know you don't want to see every post hijacked back to the same discussion. I'll try to be more focused from here out.
I do agree that Sharia Law would be a disaster and the pictures are horrifying.
Mahatma Gandhi. The great soul who was inspired by Jesus Christ. But he said “I Love Christ and Hate Christians”.
Many Hindus in the fear of Hindus embracing Christianity disagree and will never accept Gandhiji was inspired from Christ. He said he hated Christian, as in those day the Christian were British White. White men were our oppressors. These so called UK White Christians were opposite to Christ. I too, have personally used these words “I love Christ but Hate Christians. For me These Christian are my local church members who are greedy, hypocrites etc. etc. This is my personal beliefs but there are good believers too.
As a child I was told Jesus Christ was born in a oppressed nation. The situation was like British India. At that time the Roman were ruling. But Christ did not take rebellious or violent acts to be the king of the Jews and free the holy land from Roman oppressors..
So Mr. Jon. The ultimate truth is Jesus Christ and not Christians.
“Crucified Man Can Preach Crucified Christ”.
I strongly believe in this line. I know only an oppressed man can tell me what freedom means. For many of us, have taken freedom for granted. Non muslims readers, imagine the pain of a Christian not allowed to practice or preach his religion with freedom eg Saudi. A crucified man can tell me what Christianity means to Him and what Christianity stands for.
I understand the pain of Palestianian but I don’t sympathies with them and agree to their violent acts. As I also met Tibetians who are Refugees in My Country India.
So Mr. Jon the final solution is JESUS YESHU YESHUA and not True prophet Muhammad and his True teaching of Kaaba Cult of Islam.
Dear Jon and my My Dear African American Christian Brothers and Sisters.
I heard of two great American in my history book Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. As according to our education system which is secular. The chapter or Black movement of America did not mention the Religion of these great men. The chapter emphasized also about Mahatma Gandhi’s influence on the black American and its Leader Martin Luther King. ( Mahatma Gandhi was also inspired by Christ)
Later in High School I got to know Martin Luther King was not Just Martin Luther King. This Man was a church Pastor Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. I was Happy to know one Great Believer Christian. Yes a Believer Christian.
Since a teenager I hated my Priests and Pastors as I saw them as Cowards. I told them about Rev. Martin Luther King. I wanted my Church leaders to be like him. Stand up for the rights of Christian minority who are oppressed by Hindu fanatics. ( Readers you can search for Violence against Christian in India) Many of these Christian are converts of Low caste or Tribals. They came from oppressed back ground, just like the African American. These low caste hindu were tradition slaves to High Caste Hindus.
…… Reader There is lot more to write and discuss, this blog is not enough …
I have read some of these Muslim responces to the stoning and we get the same answer. Then Muslims without exception go to blaming the U.S --> "THE GREAT SATAN" OR Israel for all the injustice in the world or they run to some passages in the Torah baout stoning. But what they never do is address Shariah Law. I ask the Muslims staight out according to Shariah law was this stoning of this man a just act and do you Shariah law established in the West? The answer to this question is either yes or no. And by the way maybe you people who pointed out stoning in the Torah should read about what Jesus said to the woman who was caught in adultry. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Brother Adam wrote: “Crucified Man Can Preach Crucified Christ”... I also agree on thate... thaks to put it so straightforward to me this idea... God bless...
For the record, Bartimaeus, the story of the woman caught in adultery is not contained in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gosepl of John and therefore is probably not in the original text. On the other hand Mt 5:17-20 is authentic. It reads:
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. 18I tell you the truth, 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. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same 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. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Not to detract from the good humanitarian work of many Christians. Christians are inconsistent and disregard the words of Jesus and I think that's a good thing. It is true that fundamentalist Sharia Islam is quite scary and also too widespread. There are Christians that want to stone adulterers and homosexuals, but they are a fringe group. At least in America.
Wow. Jon, I don't know how you can deny you're a Muslim, when you interpret Bible verses exactly the way Muslims do.
Do you really think that Jesus is saying that the Old Testament law applies to His followers in Matthew 5, or were you just kidding? Have you even read the rest of the sermon, to see how everything he says in it totally contradicts your view?
No Mr. Wood i think all he does is go onto muslim websites and pulls everything out of context just as his leaders and mullahs do. By the way great show this weekend may the Lord Jesus Christ strengthen you and continue to bless you to speak the truth without hesitance. Also tell my brother Sam Shamoun, Marya Baroklooh.
Peace of Christ Be to All (that includes you muslims)
For the record, I think Jon is an atheist with a death-wish. He attacks Christianity because of his atheism; he defends Islam because of his death-wish.
For all that, it should also be menioned that Jon used to be a professing Christian, and that accounts for why Jon so easily makes moral judgments about Christian-Muslim issues. He doesn't even see just how much he is suffering from a Christian-hangover, freely borrowing from the Christian morality he learned growing up in order to condemn this, that, and the other thing, even though he no longer acknowledges the source of it.
His fierce moral denunciations make him look more like a Christian such as Johnathan Edwards than an atheist named Jon Curry. In short, Jon is a very confused fellow, a walking contradiction if you will.
In fact, case in point. Read this blog post of Jon's. Here he admits that he just can't bring himself to speak like a foul-mouthed atheist because of his Christian upbringing, something he just can't shake.
"On a totally unrelated note I want to mention one thing that I've always paid attention to. Swearing. I have a theory. Some people got it. Some don't. These guys can swear. So can this guy (yes, the link is right. Give it 20 seconds. Listen a couple of times to fully appreciate). Others sound totally unnatural. I was raised in a very evangelical family and never developed my swearing capacity. Now as an adult that doesn't feel like there's a huge moral problem with it I still find that it's difficult for me to do it without sounding like a nerd. Seems to me Richard has the same problem. He seems to swear occasionally perhaps to elicit laughter but to me it's seems unnatural for him."
Jon, thanks for telling us that what comes natural to an atheist doesn't come natural to Christians (or even someone who was raised Christian). And thanks also for giving us an example of the kind of difference Christianity and atheism produce.
Since you just said that Chrisitans don't follow Jesus, based on your unargued understanding of Matthew 5, I find it quite telling that you can't bring yourself to act like a an atheist without "sounding like a nerd" in your own eyes. You seem quite conflicted.
Dont the muslims look so happy. Like little kids at Christmas.Nothing like a good stoning to bring out the joyfull spirit in islam.
Look at how they all pitched in together and helped out to kill this man. Nothing like punishing a adulterer to bring out the civic minded, and community spirit in muslims.
Do you really think that Jesus is saying that the Old Testament law applies to His followers in Matthew 5, or were you just kidding?
I think that is what he's saying. No, I'm not kidding. This is pretty standard stuff for people that aren't committed to inerrancy. Paul and Matthew's Jesus don't agree on what is necessary for salvation. Have you ever read non-evangelicals?
Have you even read the rest of the sermon,
Yes.
to see how everything he says in it totally contradicts your view?
No. I can see how Romans contradicts it, but not Matthew.
Regarding what Jon thinks of what happened in PANAMA when it was invaded by the US to overthrow the dictator NORIEGA,the evidence shows the US army killed,it seems,thousands of civilians in their fight against the Panamanian army.That in reality the US army didn't try to avoid civilian casualties.
But as for the AFGHANISTAN issue,I believe that if it weren't for the probability the TALIBAN would win and help AL-QAIDA again the West would have left it a long time ago.
MALALAI JOYA
Maybe you know her,she is a young Afghan woman who wants the West to leave.She is also against the corrupt Afghan governement and the warlords who also rule the country and are involved in heroin exportation.She says she is for women's rights.
You can find her latest youtube speech writing "Malalai Joya-Afghan MP calls for troops out of Afghanistan",a 44 min speech in English.
NAIVETE
If the West actually gets out I don't see what would make the warlords and Taliban not come to an agreement and continue oppressing the Afghans.They are of the same religion and can come to an agreement.She thinks the Afghans are like IRANIANS.Look,if they can't overthrow their government,a largely secular people that they are,even though they try,why would one expect the mass of Afghans to fight for human rights?To fight fro women's rights?
I think you have to take an account of who their audiences were. Matthew wrote his Gospel specifically for the conversion of Jews. As a matter of fact, his Gospel was originally in Hebrew and then he issued another in Greek later on. The way you witness to a Jew is different than the way you would witness to a Gentile. (at least if you want to be successful). So what appears to be a contradiction is really a tailored message that shows a greater deference to a specific audience. But I still don't agree that any of the Gospels say mosaic law is still valid after the crucifixion. That was the mistake of the Ebionite heretics. The curtain over the Holy of Holies was rent in two which revealed an empty tabernacle, thus signifying a break with the old laws. No longer was God present in the Jewish temple, the law and the prophets were finally fulfilled. Once fulfilled they can never be refulfilled. They are no longer.
Jon, It looks like that your problmem is to understand the what the word fullfill means in the context of the sermon
why dont you do your homework first, and search the meaning of the (Fullfill) here, and what the law does stand for ?!
Hint: If you have a child, and as a child u told him dont use the knife as u will get hurt, does that by any means contradict what you will say later to him when becomes an adult, that he can use it ?!!!!!
to understand it well: the aim is the same, which is not to hurt himself, but the eman is different because of the different mentality ... could u reverse the the learning procedure ?! no , he has to mature first to understand !!!
Humanity wasnt mature religiously at the time... like any learning preocedure anywhere, takes many several years to understand any scientific concepts... it takes at least 30 years to become a doctor ...
so now do your hmoeword, and return back to us , with commenteries on the word fullfill
Jon, It looks like that your problmem is to understand the what the word fullfill means in the context of the sermon
why dont you do your homework first, and search the meaning of the (Fullfill) here, and what the law does stand for ?!
Hint: If you have a child, and as a child u told him dont use the knife as u will get hurt, does that by any means contradict what you will say later to him when becomes an adult, that he can use it ?!!!!!
to understand it well: the aim is the same, which is not to hurt himself, but the eman is different because of the different mentality ... could u reverse the the learning procedure ?! no , he has to mature first to understand !!!
Humanity wasnt mature religiously at the time... like any learning preocedure anywhere, takes many several years to understand any scientific concepts... it takes at least 30 years to become a doctor ...
so now do your hmoeword, and return back to us , with commenteries on the word fullfill
Clarification: By "death wish" above, I was referring to the fact that all efforts to smooth the way for Muslims to realize their goal of world domination is courting disaster. As the book of Proverbs says,
"But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."
Jon saide: «the story of the woman caught in adultery is not contained in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gosepl of John and therefore is probably not in the original text»...
and your pointe is? hummm?
no schoolar denies the true historical an theological background off that pericoupous... whi it was latter inserted in that place off the Gospel off John is relativelly irrelevant since the church father quoted thate text aboundately as being an inspired and authetical text...
aboutte Mt 5:17-20... well Jesus is talking to whom? aboutte whate? justte some words from the text you quoted to make you wonder:
«I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them»...
«I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees»...
Jesus is the new Law thate testifies, in His actions, the true meaning and measure off the Law... Jesus is the new and living Torah thate surpasses the antient law thate for Christians have no other canon to be interpreted than Jesus... only to those who do not follow Jesus the antient Law, or the Law not measured by Jesus, is to be interpreted the way the jews did... Jesus did not say the antient Law was closed or thate it was perfect: He saide He came to bringue it to its perfection: the antient Law, withoutt desapearing to those who do nott follow Jesus, was completed and gaven the onlie true hermeneutical tool to read it: Jesus Himself...
there's no contradiction between Jesus and Paul: Jesus is the Law, the new Torah gaven in the new Sinai; He's God; God is Love; the Law, saide Paul, is resumed in Love: in Jesus...
I woulde advice you Jon to serach for other muslim anti-Christian arguments... the ones you presented are so futille thate I really do nott know how to consider you: someone who onlie wished to bash Christianity; an ignorante person, an "agent provocateur"...
never the less I guaratee you mie prayers for you and your familie...
Dear retsamknup... I may bee wrong, butt this is the first time I see you arounde here... may God bless you and your familie and, please, do continue to bless this blesssed blog withe your blessed coments...
No. I can see how Romans contradicts it, but not Matthew.
I respond,
Do you honestly wish to promote the idea that the early Christians were so stupid as to canonize two books with contradictory ideas about the continuing relevance of the OC law while at the same time combating heresies from both sides of this very issue?
On top of that in order to hold this position you must say that Paul himself contradicts himself in the very book you mention when he speaks in a very Matthew like manor.
for example:
Quote:
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)
End quote:
The lengths folks will go to support their unbelief amazes me
no schoolar denies the true historical an theological background off that pericoupous...
Fernando, true to form it appears you just make things up and expect that I have an obligation to disprove it. This is transparently false. Take Robert Price for starters. Two PhD's in the field of study and he doesn't believe Jesus actually existed, so obviously he denies the "historical background" of the pericopous. Most scholars that I'm aware of say that it might have actually happened but they likewise agree that it wasn't part of John's original. To say that it might have happened is quite different from your claim that "no scholar denies" it.
Do you honestly wish to promote the idea that the early Christians were so stupid as to canonize two books with contradictory ideas about the continuing relevance of the OC law while at the same time combating heresies from both sides of this very issue?
Of course. Once again you people are surprised to see mainstream non-inerrancy based biblical understandings. This is standard in critical scholarship. Read some non-evangelicals.
sorry for mie poor english... you know, it's my 4th language after my native Philipino language, some bahasa, spanish... now I speak almost 12 languages... some off them berie poor, butt never the less its not to bad for someone who only start reading when I was 12...
English is not Fernando's first language. As he has said in the past, he spells things phonetically, the way they sound.
Before I go, a couple of ironies should be pointed out: 1) you call yourself "Characterbuilder" but your words to Fernando are anything but conducive to building character (indeed, if I didn't want to think better of you, I would assume they were calculated to tear him down); and 2) in the process of upbraiding Fernando for his spelling...YOU misspelled the word "category".
I can understand Fernando just fine. I personally think he's doing an excellent job of conveying himself for someone that was not born in an English speaking country.
I'm sure he can speak English better than we can speak his native tongue! :) Keep it up Fernando. I appreciate your posts very much; please do not stop!
I think Fernando's spelling is good enough,I can read him well and he is a great person.He has done what few Muslims have done,used his reason to leave Islam,and is also for respecting the human rights of others.That is a million times better.That is what counts.
CRITICIZING IDEAS
I have been participating a bit in Paul William's blog and there was talk of an English organization called the EDL(English Defense League) that is against Islam.They are publicy anti-racism and for human rights but just want Islam not to destroy the liberties of England.
Now 2 people told him so and he said he knew several sympathizers of the EDL and they were for killing all Muslims.OK.That happens.I did not participate but that was his response,quite detailed.
THE IMPORTANT THING
It is NOT if some wacko people are for it,even if they like the EDL but if the organization ITSELF is for it.That is where Paul's ideas are incomplete.It's true.
WHAT TO DO
He should have said that yes the EDL is publicly for human rights and to SHOW PROOF the LEADERS,not some wacko supporter who has no power,is really for killing all Muslims.He did not go into that territory(which was the most logical and obvious thing to do).
INCIDENT
I think Paul William's is in the present situation:he is member of a Muslim organization that is secretly for Islamic law where they would have laws against criticizing Islam(and where all of us here in this blog would end up in jail or worse).They can't say it publicly.I don't know if he actually agrees with them or not but that is WHY he can't,for example,PUBLICLY ,on his blog condemn QARADAWI(the man who said the Holocaust by Hitler was a divine punishment).
I noticed that when I wrote it down in his blog the info disappeared a day later.I had even said that for PROOF to just go to youtube.Eliminating a righteous critique of QARADAWI when your organization is officially for human rights and justice,dignity and respect,shows lack of logic.
Jon... you can quotte any PhD you want... I was, obviously, talkin aboutt person who understand (not thate believe in) the Bible...
you saide, and I quote again, thate ««the story of the woman caught in adultery is not contained in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gosepl of John and therefore is probably not in the original text»...
the problem is not, therefore, iff Jesus existed (deniyng this is like denieng the Sun does not exist...), rather iff those text is not to be considered to express Jesus' teachings...
I guess this is the point in debate, since I do not understand whie else you woulde, in this thread (and you saide you woulde stink to eache threads themes), bring it out...
ounce again: «no schoolar denies the true historical an theological background off that pericoupous»...
maybe I shoulde habe saide, and I grantt this to you, «no biblical schoolar denies the true historical an theological background off that pericoupous»... and thats nott a question off faithe, rather of understanding the way the NT was formed...
Once again you people are surprised to see mainstream non-inerrancy based biblical understandings. This is standard in critical scholarship. Read some non-evangelicals.
I respond,
Just because I disdain the logic of a position and find it’s premise laughable does not mean I’m ignorant of it.
You might try defending your position instead of merely appealing to an authority that your audience doesn’t accept. It will make for a better discussion
Fernando, the reason I brought out the point about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery is because a prior comment used this story as evidence that Jesus resisted the OT stoning laws, in contrast to Islam. But the text doesn't show this because the text is not authentic. It of course could have really happened, but we can't know. So my point is on subject.
I'm very impressed that you speak 12 languages. I'm trying to learn Spanish right now and your English is much better than my Spanish. I would think that arguing in a language that is not native is quite difficult, so well done.
I agree the woman caught in adultery was not part of John but that doesn't mean there is not good reason for accepting the ORAL TRADITION of it as true.That is the main point.Now there are 50 SON OF MAN sayings in the 4 gospels and that phrase "son of man" appears NOWHERE else.You probably know it.And scholars believe they say the actual sayings of Jesus or have a high probability for various technical reasons.
So Jesus says "the SON of MAN is LORD of the SABBATH".He is calling himself GOD.You do see it?If a scholar wants to reject it is more because he is inclined to believe Jesus did NOT claim to be God.But in the OT prophecies it does say the MESSIAH would be god.I have read it myself.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?
Maybe not, even though the Big Bang theory,the 1x10(to the 50th power) factor I gave about life appearing and the fact that even in the BEST LAB CONDITIONS scientists still can't create life,all point to God.
So why should it be impossible for God to appear as a man,and when there are prophecies written before that talk about it?
READ
I have given this BEFORE,in fact that was why I gave it:in MATT 23:1-3 Jesus tells people to follow the PHARISEES.And they were for suspending the death penalty for political reasons.So Jesus in MATT 5:17-20 is talking about when God's kingdom or rule is established.When that happens all will be perfect and no one will break any rule.
TWO COMINGS
Jesus certainly accomplished the prophecies of the first coming and brought the new alliance.He said Mosaic law would be valid in its entirety "till all is accomplished".Of what?Of the FIRST coming,as I see it.The essence of Mosaic law(Golen Rule,10 commandements)is eternal,timeless.
THE LEAST RULE
In fact he says "he came to FULFILL the law and prophets" and they talk of a Messiah and new Alliance(I have read the passages also).So it can even be he is referring to the RULES of the NEW ALLIANCE where there is no death penalty.He who teaches to break the smallest rule of the NEW alliance.Notice it comes straight after the phrase "till all is accomplished".When all is accomplished of the first coming we have a new alliance and he who teaches others to disobey the 10 commandments and Golden Rule would be condemned.It all COINCIDES with the OT passages.
Jon saide: «(...) the text doesn't show this because the text is not authentic»...
Ok, I did not say you went off topic... I saide thate I understood your reference to this passage in connection to this thread theme:
«I guess this is the point in debate, since I do not understand whie else you woulde, in this thread (and you saide you woulde stink to eache threads themes), bring it out...»...
and wahte I saide is thate no biblical schoolar deny the authenticity off the passage... there are debates on why this passge, so near to Luke's way off writting, is in thate place off John's gospel, butt to deny its autheticity woulde be like denyieng the autheticity off all the NT text... is thate whate your doing? I do nott think so since you quoted it before to support your claims...
butt I might be wrongue: do you thing thate text is nott authentic because its nott in the older manuscripts? Is thate your problem?
Iff so, I just habe to say thate you do not understand the way the NT text was formed...
Once again, Fernando, we may not be understanding each other.
When you say the text is "authentic" to me it sounds like you are saying it was part of John's original work. Scholars don't think that's true. They think it was added later. Even Minoria above recognizes that the text is not authentic in that sense.
What you may mean when you say it is authentic is that the story is an accurate description of something that happened in the life of Jesus. Minoria thinks it is based upon the oral tradition. I do not think this is a firm basis for concluding that the story is historically accurate. What is this tradition and what is it based upon? Perhaps it is based upon later manuscripts of the Gospel of John that contained the story. This isn't necessarily a good basis.
The point is the Jesus does not say that adulterers shouldn't be stoned. All indications are that Jesus would approve of the images shown in this post of the man being stoned, because it is part of the Law that supposedly he gave. So if you are going to condemn Islam, that's fine with me. I condemn the atrocious law that calls for us to stone adulterers. That's a ridiculous and immoral law. But likewise the Bible contains ridiculous and immoral laws, and Jesus nowhere indicates that he rejects these laws. In fact, according to the text I cited, he approves of them.
>> For the record, .. the story of the woman caught in adultery is not contained in the earliest Greek manuscripts ..
What Jesus is recorded to have said/did in the story of woman found in adultery is absolutely consistent with the overall life/message of Jesus. Of course Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (and fulfill the OT ceremonial laws that pointed to Jesus; fulfill God's absolute justice/love/salvation at the cross etc) and to reveal or to bring to focus, advanced nuances and dimensions to what is said in the Mosaic law. You may be hiding behind technicalities of some manuscripts etc as an excuse to disregard the overall merit of the life/teachings of Jesus? I don’t think that will take you very far, as an excuse when you come face to face with God.
>> " ... I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them ... " Christians are inconsistent and disregard the words of Jesus ..
There is no inconsistency if you have understood the words of Jesus correctly. You are mistaking the affirmation of the Mosaic law as if Jesus revealed or brought to the fore, no greater revelation than what is recorded/understood in the law of Moses in its context/time. What Jesus revealed with his life/message/teachings/death/resurrection etc, ‘surpassed’ what is understood of the law of Moses. Recall the last line what you yourself quoted - "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven". What follows after that in that passage is also in the same vein – these words reveal or bring to the fore, a message that far surpasses what is understood of the law of Moses:
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. … 23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
... 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. ...
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you … 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
But likewise the Bible contains ridiculous and immoral laws, and Jesus nowhere indicates that he rejects these laws.
I respond,
You are correct Jesus does not reject the law. He fulfills it.
That is he keeps it’s precepts perfectly and accepts the punishment due his people himself thus removing it’s penalty.
That is what the cross is all about. You need to understand this it is gospel 101
Adultery is a horrible thing that destroys the lives of all it touches and as in the case of all sin the penalty is death. All christians will agree with that.
However unlike in Islam Christians are commanded not to meter out that appropriate penalty but to forgive those who sin against us and leave judgment to God.
Our problem is not with the law illustrated in the picture per say it is with the usurpation of Gods authority by sinful men, the possible double jeopardy and the unmerciful metering out of a punishment before it’s time.
Jesus is doing what other rabbi's did and what Muslims do today. You might call it "building a hedge around the law." The law says do not commit adultery. Jesus says that since the law is so important let's build a hedge around it. Don't even look at a woman lustfully. If you can adhere to that, then there is no chance of violating the actual law.
Muslims do this with graven images. The law is don't make a graven image, because it could become an object of worship. They go one better. Don't even depict an object that could potentially be worshiped in a drawing. So they forbid drawings not just of Mohammad, but also Jesus and Moses. This way they never even approach what is the real sin.
You can see where the bhurka comes from quite naturally. Same concept. So rather than this being a denial of the relevance of the OT law it's actually further emphasis on the importance of it. The law is so important you don't even do things that even approach the forbidden actions of the law. Breaking an oath is the crime. To avoid it you never take an oath at all. Forget "do not murder." Don't even be angry. Then you'll never murder. This is a re-affirmation of the importance of the Torah.
The "eye for an eye" thing needs to be understood in light of the situation. Remember that Jews were a conquered people and couldn't just execute people that violated their law. Is Jesus saying that we shouldn't punish people though? Is he saying the punishment should not be proportionate to the crime. Some point to the fact that there is a difference between not enforcing privileges you are entitled to in the Torah as compared to rejecting the Torah. Jesus could mean that you have a right for compensation if your eye is poked out and the Torah is right, but this doesn't necessarily mean you MUST pursue what is rightfully yours. This can be a better way, though the Torah is not repudiated.
Of course some evangelicals see it differently, but I don't think their view is obvious. Mt 5:17-20 seems clear.
Hi Jon... I understand some off your points... the problem is thate church fathers quoted thate history abundantelyy as being part off the events off Jesus... they never used to say, like, us (Mt. 5:2; or Jo. 13:4)... they simply testified some event... so, ounce againd, no biblical scoolar, using the historical-critical hermeneitical tools of textual analisis (thate is used by anyone on any text -- except muslims on the qur'an and other core muslim sources... because doing so woulde be destroying all the credebility off islam --), doubts thate thate accounte is an authetical one; this is, one thate portraits an event that happened withe Jesus... all the NT texts are precedeed by oral traditions as solid as teh one thate gabe place to the insertion off thate account on thate place off John's gospel... on whether Jesus does not say not to kill her, and on whie the text is in this place off John I'll right you something latter... I'm bery tired withe my work in the University were I teach...
>> The law says do not commit adultery. Jesus says that since the law is so important let's build a hedge around it. Don't even look at a woman lustfully
No, I think you are again mistaken in your categorization of 'not looking lustfully at a woman' as merely a hedge. Do you mean to say that it was ok 'look at a woman lustfully' as per God, when God gave the law to Moses? The spirit of what the law says and what God always intended would include not looking lustfully at your neighbors wife etc. It is not as if God was ok if you look lustfully at your neighbors wife, as long as you do not commit adultery! Jesus has brought the fore the spirit and advanced nuances and dimensions to what was recorded/understood of the Mosaic Law. It is NOT about adding a level of needless restriction as you seems to have understood it. A command to not look lustfully is very much essential/required in itself.
>> Muslims do this with graven images ... They go one better. Don't even depict an object ... they forbid drawings not just of Mohammad, but also Jesus and Moses >> ... You can see where the bhurka comes from quite naturally ...
No. What Jesus said about murder, adultery etc is not the same as what you are saying above. That would amount to adding a level of needless restriction that is never required/intended by God. This really is adding to the word of God in both letter and spirit. Unlike looking lustfully at a woman which is wrong in itself, and never really was approved by God to begin with. If God does not forbid making some painting (not intended for worship) etc, it has to remain that way. You cannot take the place of God and add your own restrictions (you may politely advice though, that it may be helpful not to paint all, if that is your personal opinion). To forbid what God did not and to claim it as law of God amounts to a major sin.
57 comments:
You know i've looked at stoning in islamic scriptures.
God's book doesn't mention anything about stoning other people.
While i agree punishments are needed for adultery and forcination, the Quran clearly says lashing is the method, not stoning. If there's hadiths that contradict the Quran, then it is rejected (I'm sure many of you know that).
But doesn't Deuteronomy mention stoning? After all, it is Jesus' first revelation to Moses isn't it?
The brutality of Islam is undenable. And yet the those in the west like an ostrach continue to bury their head in the sand. Why does not the state controlled media ever do an expose on the real Islam. Opps silly question they are to busy exposing those nasty Christians like Sarah Palin
Is it just me, or are the Muslim responses totally predictable? The steps seem to always include:
(1) Denying a clear teaching of Islam, often by pretending that the Qur'an is the only source of Islamic law; and
(2) Attacking Christianity by pretending that Christians are called to follow the Mosaic law in the world today.
So we have deception at both levels.
Now WomanForTruth, are you saying that if Muhammad commanded his followers to stone adulterers, he violated the Qur'an? (Note: The traditional Islamic interpretation is that the 100 lashes refers to fornicators. Caliph Umar said that the verse of stoning was revealed as part of the Qur'an. Muslims simply left it out later.)
Would you agree that if I can provide numerous, authentic chains of transmission from your most reliable ahadith, you would be forced to conclude either (a) Muhammad violated the Qur'an and therefore committed murder, or (b) your most trusted sources are unreliable, and therefore you can't really know anything about Muhammad?
My dear woman for truth, the verses of stonning as well as the breath feeding verse are 2 verses from the Koran the domestic animal ate them under the bed of Aisha, when your prophet is dead, this is not a joke, this is truth from Sahih Muslim, and Bokhari, said by Aisha herself.
Don't forget that your prophet of doon said that you must take the half of your religion from her.
it is true the verse of stonning does not exist in the today's Koran-wich is supposed to be preserved in the preserved barre in heaven-but its law is still existing by islamic jurisprudence and scholars, stunning still exist in the SHARIA my dear, it seems that you don't know your beloved religion very well, you must take some reenforcement lessons in it.
Here are some additional horrifying pictures for you.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Made possible with U.S. weaponry. This one goes on and on and on.
The U.S. invasion of Panama
Israel's more recent attack on Gaza
Some effects of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
"If there's hadiths that contradict the Quran, then it is rejected (I'm sure many of you know that)."
No we dont know that .. we know that islam has the greatest concept of abrogation and contrdictions !!!
you have many verses in quran that contradicts each other ... like drinking wine !! so it is not that simple to say whatever contradicts the quran.. cause hequran itself is the full of contradictions.
Now if we go with what you are saying, lets just follow what the quran is saying, then are you going to follow the quran, where the prophet of islam didnt follow the quran's law !!!! ironic enough that muslims are more abiding to quran rules that theprophet of islam himself ... reminding me that he married more than four, where the quran clearly staed FOUR !!!
honestly, that makes everyone asking, what is the value of having the quran, if the prophet didnt follow it ?!! and if it is a book just full of abrogations ?!
"But doesn't Deuteronomy mention stoning? After all, it is Jesus' first revelation to Moses isn't it?"
continue reading the bibe.. the revelations didnt stop at deutonomy ...if you kept reading you will find this in Mattew:
{Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.}
then keep reading, and you will read this in John:
Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her?
6 And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
9 And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst.
10 And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee?
11 And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.
... the answer is crystal clear I think.. you are just ryingto ignore Jesus teaching , as if there was no need for him to come to our world !!!
God Bless you
Those pictures are overwhelming. Muslims often make up these claims of adultery or koranic desicration in order to murder religious minorities or moderates.
Chapter# 22, Book 8, Number 3371
Book 8, Number 3372
Book 8, Number 3383
Book 8, Number 3384
The above references show that prophet's warriors were indulged in adultery with permission from prophet. So what is this drama of stoning about.
Should we assume that when u r in position of power the rules are different.
Qur'an 4:23 mentions sex outside wedlock isnt it adultery too.
In the light of the above hadith and quran verses what is the correct message?
All right, Jon. I'm a bit out of patience for your Islamic anti-Israel bashing. When there's a point to be made about Israel, I have no problem with you or any other Muslim making it, whether I agree with you or not. But when we're trying to have a meaningful discussion about something (e.g. the spread of Sharia), and you turn every topic into an attack on Israel or the U.S., it gets old. You're adding nothing to this blog except distraction. I feel a block coming on if you can't focus on a point for more than five seconds.
Jon,
I hereby dub thee, "Captain Non Sequitur, knight of her majesty the Queen", and grant thee all the rights and privileges this title affords.
Use your new office with care. We are all counting on you.
Jon,
You are a one-trick pony.
Since you keep talking about "blowback," are you suggesting that Muslims stone adulterers, as this thread is about, because the Great Satan, i.e. secular America, has backed or aided the Little Satan's play?
Try and forget your agenda for a minute. Even if there is a point to blowback, surely it isn't a one-size fits all explanation to every problem in the world.
woman4truth-
from ur posts its obvious that u left sth (christianity) u have no clue abt and also entered sth (islam) u also have no clue abt. i would honestly suggest u that u start studying both religions.
Hi WomanForTruth101 (or Ali)... you habe been berie silente in the latter posts... I imagine you can't denie whate has been presented... iff this is the case you shloulde habe been silenced ounce again since islam do teaches this and the Bible does not... we habe shown this many times here in this blogg... don't fooll yourself...
Hi Jon...
thanks for you pictures... butt none off them was due to religious believes as whate happened in Somalia was...
ounce again: thats the point dear fellow, thats the point... iff you want to make comparisons do not do so between patatoes and tomatos...
Mr Jon and other
Nationalism and religions are two different sphere in our modern world.
I come from India, a developing nation which is considered as a super power. Geographically and Demographically Its a Continent or can be classified as Sub Continent. Here each one has their own India. I Call my self as a Bombayite or Mumbaikar ( From Bombay or mumbai), whenever I has visited a foreign land.
there Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhist, Animist, Zoroastrians, Jews and other religious group in India. Our Indian Defense force is made up from people of all these group. These men and women unlike Pakis and Arabs join the Defense to protect their mother land. We call our country Mother India.
As Communal violence is also seen in our country, people from these groups fight among them selves for insane reasons.
Such dark incident still does not break the unity of my country and our defense force. I still remember Pakistani mullas, commanding Indian Muslims not to join the army as its unislamic. But this didn’t stop these brave hearts to join the army. .
American invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan is condemned by me and my country people and same with Israel occupation in Palestine.
Mr Jon. this blog is not discussing nationalism rather religion. So stick to the Topic.
Every country has hate mongers spreading violence, Zionist in Israel, VHP In India, Taliban in Pak-afghan etc.
Maggy--
I don't think that hadith is found in Bukhari and Muslim (please let me know if I'm wrong.) It is found in Ibn Majah, book of Nikah.
Mr Jon.
About Palestine. I was in a conversation with Palestinian she told me to understand the situation of Palestinian as Indian under British rule ( Pre Indian Independence).
There are few muslim in my country also defending violence of islam. These men give examples of Indian Freedom fighters. Especially the armed revolutionary movement. These Mullas compare your holy Islamic terrorist with our Indian heroes.
Our Indian Heroes of UnDivided India ( as one part is called Pakistan) like Bhagat Singh, Sukh Dev, Rajguru, Ashfaqulla Khan Chandrashekar Azad were young boys who made a huge impact on the British. Unlike Islamic freedom fighter they did not kill innocent lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh
(Any Indian reader Please don’t compare such great souls with Islamic Jehadis.) I want muslim to read about Hindustan Socialist Republican Association And the Indian freedom struggle.
I know Islam doesn’t want intellectuals as intellectuals are considered as fakirs by true muslims. But I want you Palestinian to read our history.
Gandhi Please also read about Gandhi. Most muslim don’t want to read anything about Gandhi as he was a Hindu. But he was also inspired by Jesus Christ.
These is more to say about our Indian freedom struggle and this blog is not enough, my friend.
May Lord Jesus Christ be with muslims
Adam
I can see your point to some degree, David. My view is that the causes are the main thing and I think I'm the only one talking about them, but on the other hand I know you don't want to see every post hijacked back to the same discussion. I'll try to be more focused from here out.
I do agree that Sharia Law would be a disaster and the pictures are horrifying.
Mr Jon
Mahatma Gandhi. The great soul who was inspired by Jesus Christ. But he said “I Love Christ and Hate Christians”.
Many Hindus in the fear of Hindus embracing Christianity disagree and will never accept Gandhiji was inspired from Christ. He said he hated Christian, as in those day the Christian were British White. White men were our oppressors. These so called UK White Christians were opposite to Christ. I too, have personally used these words “I love Christ but Hate Christians. For me These Christian are my local church members who are greedy, hypocrites etc. etc. This is my personal beliefs but there are good believers too.
As a child I was told Jesus Christ was born in a oppressed nation. The situation was like British India. At that time the Roman were ruling. But Christ did not take rebellious or violent acts to be the king of the Jews and free the holy land from Roman oppressors..
So Mr. Jon. The ultimate truth is Jesus Christ and not Christians.
“Crucified Man Can Preach Crucified Christ”.
I strongly believe in this line. I know only an oppressed man can tell me what freedom means. For many of us, have taken freedom for granted. Non muslims readers, imagine the pain of a Christian not allowed to practice or preach his religion with freedom eg Saudi. A crucified man can tell me what Christianity means to Him and what Christianity stands for.
I understand the pain of Palestianian but I don’t sympathies with them and agree to their violent acts. As I also met Tibetians who are Refugees in My Country India.
So Mr. Jon the final solution is JESUS YESHU YESHUA and not True prophet Muhammad and his True teaching of Kaaba Cult of Islam.
Dear Jon and my My Dear African American Christian Brothers and Sisters.
I heard of two great American in my history book Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. As according to our education system which is secular. The chapter or Black movement of America did not mention the Religion of these great men. The chapter emphasized also about Mahatma Gandhi’s influence on the black American and its Leader Martin Luther King. ( Mahatma Gandhi was also inspired by Christ)
Later in High School I got to know Martin Luther King was not Just Martin Luther King. This Man was a church Pastor Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. I was Happy to know one Great Believer Christian. Yes a Believer Christian.
Since a teenager I hated my Priests and Pastors as I saw them as Cowards. I told them about Rev. Martin Luther King. I wanted my Church leaders to be like him. Stand up for the rights of Christian minority who are oppressed by Hindu fanatics. ( Readers you can search for Violence against Christian in India) Many of these Christian are converts of Low caste or Tribals. They came from oppressed back ground, just like the African American. These low caste hindu were tradition slaves to High Caste Hindus.
…… Reader There is lot more to write and discuss, this blog is not enough …
Ultimately Jesus is the answer …..
I have read some of these Muslim responces to the stoning and we get the same answer. Then Muslims without exception go to blaming the U.S --> "THE GREAT SATAN" OR Israel for all the injustice in the world or they run to some passages in the Torah baout stoning. But what they never do is address Shariah Law. I ask the Muslims staight out according to Shariah law was this stoning of this man a just act and do you Shariah law established in the West? The answer to this question is either yes or no. And by the way maybe you people who pointed out stoning in the Torah should read about what Jesus said to the woman who was caught in adultry. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Brother Adam wrote: “Crucified Man Can Preach Crucified Christ”... I also agree on thate... thaks to put it so straightforward to me this idea... God bless...
For the record, Bartimaeus, the story of the woman caught in adultery is not contained in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gosepl of John and therefore is probably not in the original text. On the other hand Mt 5:17-20 is authentic. It reads:
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. 18I tell you the truth, 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. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same 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. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Not to detract from the good humanitarian work of many Christians. Christians are inconsistent and disregard the words of Jesus and I think that's a good thing. It is true that fundamentalist Sharia Islam is quite scary and also too widespread. There are Christians that want to stone adulterers and homosexuals, but they are a fringe group. At least in America.
Wow. Jon, I don't know how you can deny you're a Muslim, when you interpret Bible verses exactly the way Muslims do.
Do you really think that Jesus is saying that the Old Testament law applies to His followers in Matthew 5, or were you just kidding? Have you even read the rest of the sermon, to see how everything he says in it totally contradicts your view?
No Mr. Wood i think all he does is go onto muslim websites and pulls everything out of context just as his leaders and mullahs do. By the way great show this weekend may the Lord Jesus Christ strengthen you and continue to bless you to speak the truth without hesitance. Also tell my brother Sam Shamoun, Marya Baroklooh.
Peace of Christ Be to All (that includes you muslims)
For the record, I think Jon is an atheist with a death-wish. He attacks Christianity because of his atheism; he defends Islam because of his death-wish.
For all that, it should also be menioned that Jon used to be a professing Christian, and that accounts for why Jon so easily makes moral judgments about Christian-Muslim issues. He doesn't even see just how much he is suffering from a Christian-hangover, freely borrowing from the Christian morality he learned growing up in order to condemn this, that, and the other thing, even though he no longer acknowledges the source of it.
His fierce moral denunciations make him look more like a Christian such as Johnathan Edwards than an atheist named Jon Curry. In short, Jon is a very confused fellow, a walking contradiction if you will.
In fact, case in point. Read this blog post of Jon's. Here he admits that he just can't bring himself to speak like a foul-mouthed atheist because of his Christian upbringing, something he just can't shake.
"On a totally unrelated note I want to mention one thing that I've always paid attention to. Swearing. I have a theory. Some people got it. Some don't. These guys can swear. So can this guy (yes, the link is right. Give it 20 seconds. Listen a couple of times to fully appreciate). Others sound totally unnatural. I was raised in a very evangelical family and never developed my swearing capacity. Now as an adult that doesn't feel like there's a huge moral problem with it I still find that it's difficult for me to do it without sounding like a nerd. Seems to me Richard has the same problem. He seems to swear occasionally perhaps to elicit laughter but to me it's seems unnatural for him."
Jon, thanks for telling us that what comes natural to an atheist doesn't come natural to Christians (or even someone who was raised Christian). And thanks also for giving us an example of the kind of difference Christianity and atheism produce.
Since you just said that Chrisitans don't follow Jesus, based on your unargued understanding of Matthew 5, I find it quite telling that you can't bring yourself to act like a an atheist without "sounding like a nerd" in your own eyes. You seem quite conflicted.
Dont the muslims look so happy. Like little kids at Christmas.Nothing like a good stoning to bring out the joyfull spirit in islam.
Look at how they all pitched in together and helped out to kill this man. Nothing like punishing a adulterer to bring out the civic minded, and community spirit in muslims.
Do you really think that Jesus is saying that the Old Testament law applies to His followers in Matthew 5, or were you just kidding?
I think that is what he's saying. No, I'm not kidding. This is pretty standard stuff for people that aren't committed to inerrancy. Paul and Matthew's Jesus don't agree on what is necessary for salvation. Have you ever read non-evangelicals?
Have you even read the rest of the sermon,
Yes.
to see how everything he says in it totally contradicts your view?
No. I can see how Romans contradicts it, but not Matthew.
Regarding what Jon thinks of what happened in PANAMA when it was invaded by the US to overthrow the dictator NORIEGA,the evidence shows the US army killed,it seems,thousands of civilians in their fight against the Panamanian army.That in reality the US army didn't try to avoid civilian casualties.
But as for the AFGHANISTAN issue,I believe that if it weren't for the probability the TALIBAN would win and help AL-QAIDA again the West would have left it a long time ago.
MALALAI JOYA
Maybe you know her,she is a young Afghan woman who wants the West to leave.She is also against the corrupt Afghan governement and the warlords who also rule the country and are involved in heroin exportation.She says she is for women's rights.
You can find her latest youtube speech writing "Malalai Joya-Afghan MP calls for troops out of Afghanistan",a 44 min speech in English.
NAIVETE
If the West actually gets out I don't see what would make the warlords and Taliban not come to an agreement and continue oppressing the Afghans.They are of the same religion and can come to an agreement.She thinks the Afghans are like IRANIANS.Look,if they can't overthrow their government,a largely secular people that they are,even though they try,why would one expect the mass of Afghans to fight for human rights?To fight fro women's rights?
Jon,
I think you have to take an account of who their audiences were. Matthew wrote his Gospel specifically for the conversion of Jews. As a matter of fact, his Gospel was originally in Hebrew and then he issued another in Greek later on. The way you witness to a Jew is different than the way you would witness to a Gentile. (at least if you want to be successful). So what appears to be a contradiction is really a tailored message that shows a greater deference to a specific audience. But I still don't agree that any of the Gospels say mosaic law is still valid after the crucifixion. That was the mistake of the Ebionite heretics. The curtain over the Holy of Holies was rent in two which revealed an empty tabernacle, thus signifying a break with the old laws. No longer was God present in the Jewish temple, the law and the prophets were finally fulfilled. Once fulfilled they can never be refulfilled. They are no longer.
Of course, this is my humble opinion:)
Jon, It looks like that your problmem is to understand the what the word fullfill means in the context of the sermon
why dont you do your homework first, and search the meaning of the (Fullfill) here, and what the law does stand for ?!
Hint: If you have a child, and as a child u told him dont use the knife as u will get hurt, does that by any means contradict what you will say later to him when becomes an adult, that he can use it ?!!!!!
to understand it well: the aim is the same, which is not to hurt himself, but the eman is different because of the different mentality ... could u reverse the the learning procedure ?! no , he has to mature first to understand !!!
Humanity wasnt mature religiously at the time... like any learning preocedure anywhere, takes many several years to understand any scientific concepts... it takes at least 30 years to become a doctor ...
so now do your hmoeword, and return back to us , with commenteries on the word fullfill
GOD BLESS YOU
Jon, It looks like that your problmem is to understand the what the word fullfill means in the context of the sermon
why dont you do your homework first, and search the meaning of the (Fullfill) here, and what the law does stand for ?!
Hint: If you have a child, and as a child u told him dont use the knife as u will get hurt, does that by any means contradict what you will say later to him when becomes an adult, that he can use it ?!!!!!
to understand it well: the aim is the same, which is not to hurt himself, but the eman is different because of the different mentality ... could u reverse the the learning procedure ?! no , he has to mature first to understand !!!
Humanity wasnt mature religiously at the time... like any learning preocedure anywhere, takes many several years to understand any scientific concepts... it takes at least 30 years to become a doctor ...
so now do your hmoeword, and return back to us , with commenteries on the word fullfill
GOD BLESS YOU
Clarification: By "death wish" above, I was referring to the fact that all efforts to smooth the way for Muslims to realize their goal of world domination is courting disaster. As the book of Proverbs says,
"But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."
Jon saide: «the story of the woman caught in adultery is not contained in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gosepl of John and therefore is probably not in the original text»...
and your pointe is? hummm?
no schoolar denies the true historical an theological background off that pericoupous... whi it was latter inserted in that place off the Gospel off John is relativelly irrelevant since the church father quoted thate text aboundately as being an inspired and authetical text...
aboutte Mt 5:17-20...
well Jesus is talking to whom? aboutte whate? justte some words from the text you quoted to make you wonder:
«I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them»...
«I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees»...
Jesus is the new Law thate testifies, in His actions, the true meaning and measure off the Law... Jesus is the new and living Torah thate surpasses the antient law thate for Christians have no other canon to be interpreted than Jesus... only to those who do not follow Jesus the antient Law, or the Law not measured by Jesus, is to be interpreted the way the jews did... Jesus did not say the antient Law was closed or thate it was perfect: He saide He came to bringue it to its perfection: the antient Law, withoutt desapearing to those who do nott follow Jesus, was completed and gaven the onlie true hermeneutical tool to read it: Jesus Himself...
there's no contradiction between Jesus and Paul: Jesus is the Law, the new Torah gaven in the new Sinai; He's God; God is Love; the Law, saide Paul, is resumed in Love: in Jesus...
I woulde advice you Jon to serach for other muslim anti-Christian arguments... the ones you presented are so futille thate I really do nott know how to consider you: someone who onlie wished to bash Christianity; an ignorante person, an "agent provocateur"...
never the less I guaratee you mie prayers for you and your familie...
Dear retsamknup... I may bee wrong, butt this is the first time I see you arounde here... may God bless you and your familie and, please, do continue to bless this blesssed blog withe your blessed coments...
Fernando,
Do you reread your posts? Your spelling is atrocious.
There are some others on this blog in the same catagory.
Brothers please honor your Lord with excellence.
Jon said,
No. I can see how Romans contradicts it, but not Matthew.
I respond,
Do you honestly wish to promote the idea that the early Christians were so stupid as to canonize two books with contradictory ideas about the continuing relevance of the OC law while at the same time combating heresies from both sides of this very issue?
On top of that in order to hold this position you must say that Paul himself contradicts himself in the very book you mention when he speaks in a very Matthew like manor.
for example:
Quote:
Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
(Romans 3:31)
End quote:
The lengths folks will go to support their unbelief amazes me
peace
no schoolar denies the true historical an theological background off that pericoupous...
Fernando, true to form it appears you just make things up and expect that I have an obligation to disprove it. This is transparently false. Take Robert Price for starters. Two PhD's in the field of study and he doesn't believe Jesus actually existed, so obviously he denies the "historical background" of the pericopous. Most scholars that I'm aware of say that it might have actually happened but they likewise agree that it wasn't part of John's original. To say that it might have happened is quite different from your claim that "no scholar denies" it.
Do you honestly wish to promote the idea that the early Christians were so stupid as to canonize two books with contradictory ideas about the continuing relevance of the OC law while at the same time combating heresies from both sides of this very issue?
Of course. Once again you people are surprised to see mainstream non-inerrancy based biblical understandings. This is standard in critical scholarship. Read some non-evangelicals.
Hi characterbuilder...
sorry for mie poor english... you know, it's my 4th language after my native Philipino language, some bahasa, spanish... now I speak almost 12 languages... some off them berie poor, butt never the less its not to bad for someone who only start reading when I was 12...
Characterbuilder,
English is not Fernando's first language. As he has said in the past, he spells things phonetically, the way they sound.
Before I go, a couple of ironies should be pointed out: 1) you call yourself "Characterbuilder" but your words to Fernando are anything but conducive to building character (indeed, if I didn't want to think better of you, I would assume they were calculated to tear him down); and 2) in the process of upbraiding Fernando for his spelling...YOU misspelled the word "category".
Semper,
Concerning the word category... "Something like pride comes before a fall" comes to mind.
Your comments are noted and accepted.
Rec. man please accept my apology.
"Iron sharpens Iron so one man sharpens another."
I can understand Fernando just fine. I personally think he's doing an excellent job of conveying himself for someone that was not born in an English speaking country.
I'm sure he can speak English better than we can speak his native tongue! :) Keep it up Fernando.
I appreciate your posts very much; please do not stop!
May God bless you,
~Tania
I think Fernando's spelling is good enough,I can read him well and he is a great person.He has done what few Muslims have done,used his reason to leave Islam,and is also for respecting the human rights of others.That is a million times better.That is what counts.
CRITICIZING IDEAS
I have been participating a bit in Paul William's blog and there was talk of an English organization called the EDL(English Defense League) that is against Islam.They are publicy anti-racism and for human rights but just want Islam not to destroy the liberties of England.
Now 2 people told him so and he said he knew several sympathizers of the EDL and they were for killing all Muslims.OK.That happens.I did not participate but that was his response,quite detailed.
THE IMPORTANT THING
It is NOT if some wacko people are for it,even if they like the EDL but if the organization ITSELF is for it.That is where Paul's ideas are incomplete.It's true.
WHAT TO DO
He should have said that yes the EDL is publicly for human rights and to SHOW PROOF the LEADERS,not some wacko supporter who has no power,is really for killing all Muslims.He did not go into that territory(which was the most logical and obvious thing to do).
INCIDENT
I think Paul William's is in the present situation:he is member of a Muslim organization that is secretly for Islamic law where they would have laws against criticizing Islam(and where all of us here in this blog would end up in jail or worse).They can't say it publicly.I don't know if he actually agrees with them or not but that is WHY he can't,for example,PUBLICLY ,on his blog condemn QARADAWI(the man who said the Holocaust by Hitler was a divine punishment).
I noticed that when I wrote it down in his blog the info disappeared a day later.I had even said that for PROOF to just go to youtube.Eliminating a righteous critique of QARADAWI when your organization is officially for human rights and justice,dignity and respect,shows lack of logic.
Jon... you can quotte any PhD you want... I was, obviously, talkin aboutt person who understand (not thate believe in) the Bible...
you saide, and I quote again, thate ««the story of the woman caught in adultery is not contained in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Gosepl of John and therefore is probably not in the original text»...
the problem is not, therefore, iff Jesus existed (deniyng this is like denieng the Sun does not exist...), rather iff those text is not to be considered to express Jesus' teachings...
I guess this is the point in debate, since I do not understand whie else you woulde, in this thread (and you saide you woulde stink to eache threads themes), bring it out...
ounce again: «no schoolar denies the true historical an theological background off that pericoupous»...
maybe I shoulde habe saide, and I grantt this to you, «no biblical schoolar denies the true historical an theological background off that pericoupous»... and thats nott a question off faithe, rather of understanding the way the NT was formed...
Fernando,
Please accept my apology...and blessings to you Bro.
(In my last post I addressed it to Rec. man... I love how God humbles me!)
hey Jon,
Once again you people are surprised to see mainstream non-inerrancy based biblical understandings. This is standard in critical scholarship. Read some non-evangelicals.
I respond,
Just because I disdain the logic of a position and find it’s premise laughable does not mean I’m ignorant of it.
You might try defending your position instead of merely appealing to an authority that your audience doesn’t accept. It will make for a better discussion
peace
Fernando, the reason I brought out the point about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery is because a prior comment used this story as evidence that Jesus resisted the OT stoning laws, in contrast to Islam. But the text doesn't show this because the text is not authentic. It of course could have really happened, but we can't know. So my point is on subject.
I'm very impressed that you speak 12 languages. I'm trying to learn Spanish right now and your English is much better than my Spanish. I would think that arguing in a language that is not native is quite difficult, so well done.
Jon:
I agree the woman caught in adultery was not part of John but that doesn't mean there is not good reason for accepting the ORAL TRADITION of it as true.That is the main point.Now there are 50 SON OF MAN sayings in the 4 gospels and that phrase "son of man" appears NOWHERE else.You probably know it.And scholars believe they say the actual sayings of Jesus or have a high probability for various technical reasons.
So Jesus says "the SON of MAN is LORD of the SABBATH".He is calling himself GOD.You do see it?If a scholar wants to reject it is more because he is inclined to believe Jesus did NOT claim to be God.But in the OT prophecies it does say the MESSIAH would be god.I have read it myself.
DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?
Maybe not, even though the Big Bang theory,the 1x10(to the 50th power) factor I gave about life appearing and the fact that even in the BEST LAB CONDITIONS scientists still can't create life,all point to God.
So why should it be impossible for God to appear as a man,and when there are prophecies written before that talk about it?
READ
I have given this BEFORE,in fact that was why I gave it:in MATT 23:1-3 Jesus tells people to follow the PHARISEES.And they were for suspending the death penalty for political reasons.So Jesus in MATT 5:17-20 is talking about when God's kingdom or rule is established.When that happens all will be perfect and no one will break any rule.
TWO COMINGS
Jesus certainly accomplished the prophecies of the first coming and brought the new alliance.He said Mosaic law would be valid in its entirety "till all is accomplished".Of what?Of the FIRST coming,as I see it.The essence of Mosaic law(Golen Rule,10 commandements)is eternal,timeless.
THE LEAST RULE
In fact he says "he came to FULFILL the law and prophets" and they talk of a Messiah and new Alliance(I have read the passages also).So it can even be he is referring to the RULES of the NEW ALLIANCE where there is no death penalty.He who teaches to break the smallest rule of the NEW alliance.Notice it comes straight after the phrase "till all is accomplished".When all is accomplished of the first coming we have a new alliance and he who teaches others to disobey the 10 commandments and Golden Rule would be condemned.It all COINCIDES with the OT passages.
Jon saide: «(...) the text doesn't show this because the text is not authentic»...
Ok, I did not say you went off topic... I saide thate I understood your reference to this passage in connection to this thread theme:
«I guess this is the point in debate, since I do not understand whie else you woulde, in this thread (and you saide you woulde stink to eache threads themes), bring it out...»...
and wahte I saide is thate no biblical schoolar deny the authenticity off the passage... there are debates on why this passge, so near to Luke's way off writting, is in thate place off John's gospel, butt to deny its autheticity woulde be like denyieng the autheticity off all the NT text... is thate whate your doing? I do nott think so since you quoted it before to support your claims...
butt I might be wrongue: do you thing thate text is nott authentic because its nott in the older manuscripts? Is thate your problem?
Iff so, I just habe to say thate you do not understand the way the NT text was formed...
God bless...
Once again, Fernando, we may not be understanding each other.
When you say the text is "authentic" to me it sounds like you are saying it was part of John's original work. Scholars don't think that's true. They think it was added later. Even Minoria above recognizes that the text is not authentic in that sense.
What you may mean when you say it is authentic is that the story is an accurate description of something that happened in the life of Jesus. Minoria thinks it is based upon the oral tradition. I do not think this is a firm basis for concluding that the story is historically accurate. What is this tradition and what is it based upon? Perhaps it is based upon later manuscripts of the Gospel of John that contained the story. This isn't necessarily a good basis.
The point is the Jesus does not say that adulterers shouldn't be stoned. All indications are that Jesus would approve of the images shown in this post of the man being stoned, because it is part of the Law that supposedly he gave. So if you are going to condemn Islam, that's fine with me. I condemn the atrocious law that calls for us to stone adulterers. That's a ridiculous and immoral law. But likewise the Bible contains ridiculous and immoral laws, and Jesus nowhere indicates that he rejects these laws. In fact, according to the text I cited, he approves of them.
We're back to that beam in your own eye.
Jon,
>> For the record, .. the story of the woman caught in adultery is not contained in the earliest Greek manuscripts ..
What Jesus is recorded to have said/did in the story of woman found in adultery is absolutely consistent with the overall life/message of Jesus. Of course Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (and fulfill the OT ceremonial laws that pointed to Jesus; fulfill God's absolute justice/love/salvation at the cross etc) and to reveal or to bring to focus, advanced nuances and dimensions to what is said in the Mosaic law. You may be hiding behind technicalities of some manuscripts etc as an excuse to disregard the overall merit of the life/teachings of Jesus? I don’t think that will take you very far, as an excuse when you come face to face with God.
>> " ... I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them ... " Christians are inconsistent and disregard the words of Jesus ..
There is no inconsistency if you have understood the words of Jesus correctly. You are mistaking the affirmation of the Mosaic law as if Jesus revealed or brought to the fore, no greater revelation than what is recorded/understood in the law of Moses in its context/time. What Jesus revealed with his life/message/teachings/death/resurrection etc, ‘surpassed’ what is understood of the law of Moses. Recall the last line what you yourself quoted - "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven". What follows after that in that passage is also in the same vein – these words reveal or bring to the fore, a message that far surpasses what is understood of the law of Moses:
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.
…
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
...
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
...
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
…
48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Hey Jon,
you say:
But likewise the Bible contains ridiculous and immoral laws, and Jesus nowhere indicates that he rejects these laws.
I respond,
You are correct Jesus does not reject the law. He fulfills it.
That is he keeps it’s precepts perfectly and accepts the punishment due his people himself thus removing it’s penalty.
That is what the cross is all about. You need to understand this it is gospel 101
Adultery is a horrible thing that destroys the lives of all it touches and as in the case of all sin the penalty is death. All christians will agree with that.
However unlike in Islam Christians are commanded not to meter out that appropriate penalty but to forgive those who sin against us and leave judgment to God.
Our problem is not with the law illustrated in the picture per say it is with the usurpation of Gods authority by sinful men, the possible double jeopardy and the unmerciful metering out of a punishment before it’s time.
Now do you understand?
peace
Jesus is doing what other rabbi's did and what Muslims do today. You might call it "building a hedge around the law." The law says do not commit adultery. Jesus says that since the law is so important let's build a hedge around it. Don't even look at a woman lustfully. If you can adhere to that, then there is no chance of violating the actual law.
Muslims do this with graven images. The law is don't make a graven image, because it could become an object of worship. They go one better. Don't even depict an object that could potentially be worshiped in a drawing. So they forbid drawings not just of Mohammad, but also Jesus and Moses. This way they never even approach what is the real sin.
You can see where the bhurka comes from quite naturally. Same concept. So rather than this being a denial of the relevance of the OT law it's actually further emphasis on the importance of it. The law is so important you don't even do things that even approach the forbidden actions of the law. Breaking an oath is the crime. To avoid it you never take an oath at all. Forget "do not murder." Don't even be angry. Then you'll never murder. This is a re-affirmation of the importance of the Torah.
The "eye for an eye" thing needs to be understood in light of the situation. Remember that Jews were a conquered people and couldn't just execute people that violated their law. Is Jesus saying that we shouldn't punish people though? Is he saying the punishment should not be proportionate to the crime. Some point to the fact that there is a difference between not enforcing privileges you are entitled to in the Torah as compared to rejecting the Torah. Jesus could mean that you have a right for compensation if your eye is poked out and the Torah is right, but this doesn't necessarily mean you MUST pursue what is rightfully yours. This can be a better way, though the Torah is not repudiated.
Of course some evangelicals see it differently, but I don't think their view is obvious. Mt 5:17-20 seems clear.
Hi Jon... I understand some off your points... the problem is thate church fathers quoted thate history abundantelyy as being part off the events off Jesus... they never used to say, like, us (Mt. 5:2; or Jo. 13:4)... they simply testified some event... so, ounce againd, no biblical scoolar, using the historical-critical hermeneitical tools of textual analisis (thate is used by anyone on any text -- except muslims on the qur'an and other core muslim sources... because doing so woulde be destroying all the credebility off islam --), doubts thate thate accounte is an authetical one; this is, one thate portraits an event that happened withe Jesus... all the NT texts are precedeed by oral traditions as solid as teh one thate gabe place to the insertion off thate account on thate place off John's gospel... on whether Jesus does not say not to kill her, and on whie the text is in this place off John I'll right you something latter... I'm bery tired withe my work in the University were I teach...
God bless...
Jon,
>> The law says do not commit adultery. Jesus says that since the law is so important let's build a hedge around it. Don't even look at a woman lustfully
No, I think you are again mistaken in your categorization of 'not looking lustfully at a woman' as merely a hedge. Do you mean to say that it was ok 'look at a woman lustfully' as per God, when God gave the law to Moses? The spirit of what the law says and what God always intended would include not looking lustfully at your neighbors wife etc. It is not as if God was ok if you look lustfully at your neighbors wife, as long as you do not commit adultery! Jesus has brought the fore the spirit and advanced nuances and dimensions to what was recorded/understood of the Mosaic Law. It is NOT about adding a level of needless restriction as you seems to have understood it. A command to not look lustfully is very much essential/required in itself.
>> Muslims do this with graven images ... They go one better. Don't even depict an object ... they forbid drawings not just of Mohammad, but also Jesus and Moses
>> ... You can see where the bhurka comes from quite naturally ...
No. What Jesus said about murder, adultery etc is not the same as what you are saying above. That would amount to adding a level of needless restriction that is never required/intended by God. This really is adding to the word of God in both letter and spirit. Unlike looking lustfully at a woman which is wrong in itself, and never really was approved by God to begin with. If God does not forbid making some painting (not intended for worship) etc, it has to remain that way. You cannot take the place of God and add your own restrictions (you may politely advice though, that it may be helpful not to paint all, if that is your personal opinion). To forbid what God did not and to claim it as law of God amounts to a major sin.
Post a Comment