Bakame - if you're listening in, that's also your cue. I spent a long time last night writing a response to your post on that thread last night only to find the thread deleted when I went to post.
.
I was a bit surprised, and tbh frustrated that the thread was deleted...It's been a while since I last had the chance to give you a lecture, as you were on a hiatus...and now it gets deleted...I didn't see any flamewar going on there...I feel like my response was wasted...luckily I boomarked the sites I linked. You can always pm me or smtg with your response.
I am a Christian who does not believe Jesus died for our sins. Find me the story in the Bible that supports your assertion that Jesus did die because of my sins.
How do you explain this, then?
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: " /1 Peter 3:18/
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," /1 Chor. 15:3/
"And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him.
...
And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”" /Luke 4/
Isaiah reads:
"He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins!
But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed."
/Isaiah 53: 3-5/
" This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.” /Matthew 8:17/
"...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” /Matthew 20:28/
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” /Mark 10:45/
Tho I see your point. This is not the only point on which the Bible is ambiguous. I've noticed that you're close to the muslim concepts on certain things. You should consider conversion
Btw JWs hold the view that Jesus died for our sins.
I'm not going to defend this guy's actions in the slightest. They're absolutely wrong. However, when you get right down to it, he's someone that did something terrible, and knows it. I'd say you need to look at yourself, and question why you take such delight in someone's morality being sub par(or the fact you go on Gawker period), and what this indicates about yourself.
I'm not going to defend this guy's actions in the slightest. They're absolutely wrong. However, when you get right down to it, he's someone that did something terrible, and knows it. I'd say you need to look at yourself, and question why you take such delight in someone's morality being sub par(or the fact you go on Gawker period), and what this indicates about yourself.
I'm not happy that he cheated on his wife. I'm laughing at the irony of the situation. Not sure why you and Aim4 can't comprehend that. Everyone else could.
I'm not happy that he cheated on his wife. I'm laughing at the irony of the situation. Not sure why you and Aim4 can't comprehend that. Everyone else could.
I was a bit surprised, and tbh frustrated that the thread was deleted...It's been a while since I last had the chance to give you a lecture, as you were on a hiatus...and now it gets deleted...I didn't see any flamewar going on there...I feel like my response was wasted...luckily I boomarked the sites I linked. You can always pm me or smtg with your response.
I'll have to reconstruct my response, more or less, at some point in time... I put like five hours into the dang thing. There were a lot of hadith to look up and verify, as well as some fun work with arabic.
How do you explain this, then?
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: " /1 Peter 3:18/
What is very important to keep in mind about the Bible is that it is the written account of the author.
However, what we also must keep in mind is the perceived role of the Messiah within the Jewish religion and teaching.
According to Judaic belief, when people died, we went into a sort of catatonic state of 'death.' This remains the case until the arrival of the Messiah, whose presence and fulfillment brings about the spiritual resurrection of those who have died.
I am making a very general statement, here, there is more detail to it, but there's a particular chapter in John where Jesus and the Pharisee are discussing how Moses died. I'll reference it a bit, later.
It's also important to distinguish between what is considered to be the "economic model of the Cross" and the mission/purpose of the Messiah. The economic model of the Cross insists that Christ's death was necessary to cleanse our sins.
There is an excellent explanation of this here:
You must be registered for see links
"I’m especially talking about those tidy explanations of the cross known as “atonement theories.” I find most of them inadequate; others I find repellent. Particularly abhorrent are those theories that portray the Father of Jesus as a pagan deity who can only be placated by the barbarism of child sacrifice. The god who is mollified by throwing a virgin into a volcano or by nailing his son to a tree is not the Abba of Jesus!
Neither is the death of Jesus a kind of quid pro quo by which God gains the necessary capital to forgive sinners. No! Jesus does not save us from God; Jesus reveals God! Jesus does not provide God with the capacity to forgive; Jesus reveals God as forgiving love. An “economic model” of the cross just won’t work. It’s not as if God is saying, “Look, I’d love to forgive you, but I’ve got to pay off Justice first, and, you know how she is, she’s a tough goddess, she requires due payment.” This understanding of the cross begs the question of who exactly is in charge — the Father of Jesus or some abstract ideal called “Justice”?
When we confess with Paul that “Christ died for our sins,” we don’t mean that God required the vicious murder of his Son in order to forgive. How would that work anyway? Did God have some scale of torture that once met would “satisfy his wrath?” Think it through and you’ll see the problem. Was death not enough to satisfy this god? Did it have to be death by crucifixion? Did torture have to be part of the equation? And how does that work? Was there a minimum number of lashes required in the scourging? Did the thorny crown have to have a certain number of thorns in order for this god to call the scales balanced? "
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," /1 Chor. 15:3/
"And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him.
...
And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”" /Luke 4/
Isaiah reads:
"He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins!
But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed."
/Isaiah 53: 3-5/
" This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.” /Matthew 8:17/
"...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” /Matthew 20:28/
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” /Mark 10:45/
You have to consider the actual story of Jesus within its socio-political backdrop.
Jesus was an inspiring young spiritual-religious leader who descended from the line of David. His father was a contract carpenter working to help with the construction of the Temple, and Jesus spent a considerable amount of time studying with the Rabbi and Pharisee while his father worked on the Temple. Many of these stories come from the Apocrypha - but there is little reason to doubt those specific accounts.
Jesus knew the scriptures and the law as well or better than most of the Pharisee at the time. The Pharisee had erected an aristocratic system within the religion built from selective application of Mosaic Law and scriptural teachings. In a very basic sense, they essentially began to teach that the ticket to salvation would be found through the purchase of sacrificial animals (among other things). The Pharisee owned much of the productive land in Israel at the time, and the Pharisee directly controlled many of the laws at the time.
Jesus, very astutely, recognized this system as abusive of God's teachings and began preaching against the Pharisee. Matthew 23 is a perfect example of this. He taught from within the Old Testament that God was not beholden to the institutions of men and that it was necessary for each individual to seek God, not just to dedicate one's self to the institutions man erects around God (I'm paraphrasing).
This made him a political enemy of the Phraisee. Of course, he was careful not to openly declare himself as the Messiah.
The Jews were expecting a warlord Messiah to free them from Rome. There were numerous individuals who would create militia-backed uprisings while claiming to be the Messiah. Anyone the Jews accepted as a Messiah was essentially the "King" - and Roman law frowned strongly upon anyone other than the Emperor of Rome being a king.
Eventually, Jesus was arrested and tried by Pilate - who found no veracity to the charge that he was guilty of plotting a military uprising. When presented with the option of releasing Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Bar Abbas (the leader of a Jewish rebellion force) - the Jews chose Bar Abbas.
(There is some interesting debate on this with regards to the story of the release at the Governor's Banquet - it's worth reading through some of the different theories on who Bar Abbas was, whether or not the story is accurate, etc).
If I could be allowed to advance my own theory - it would be that the betrayal Jesus spoke about at the Last Supper was not, in fact, Judas - but, instead, the fact that there would be those who would attempt to throw a militant uprising in his name. Jesus' message of non-violence was hard for the Jews to accept, particularly where Rome was concerned.
The account of the selection between Jesus of Nazaraeth and Jesus Bar Abbas is symbolic of the Jews choosing between the acceptance of Jesus' peaceful message or the Jews attempting to use Jesus to advance their ambitions against Rome - perhaps told by Matthew amid a sensitive political time when many of Jesus' followers were in fear of further persecution by Rome or in fear of retaliation from militant factions who had taken to Jesus.
Jesus spoke, during the Last Supper, of those who would betray him. That is classically interpreted to be Judas - but it should be noted what he says in Matthew 24 and is also recounted in Mark 13:
" 1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
4Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains. "
Mark recounts:
" 5Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
9“You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. "
Jesus was specifically warning against those who would choose to rebel against Rome.
Read Luke's account of Jesus' Last Supper and arrest:
You must be registered for see links
"31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”
34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied. "
Classical interpretations of this scene, I argue, are only partially correct. Jesus is not naming Judas as a betrayer, here. He is naming those who would commit to war among them as those who are betraying him. Note that he also seems to do a drive-by on Peter after Peter insists he would serve time in Jail for Jesus.
I'm also 'reading' a sense of some tongue-in-cheek comments from Jesus when he contrasts when he first led the disciples against what is happening, currently. It's as if he is asking them to consider what they are doing now versus what they have done, then. When they present the swords, he cuts off the conversation.
John recounts that Judas was instructed by Jesus to 'do what he would do.'
Consider, for a moment, that Jesus knew his disciples were planning on turning Jesus' teachings into a militant uprising against Rome. Keep in mind that the Jews were very much expecting the Messiah to be a warlord to free them from Rome. There was a new Messiah every few months who was leading some variety of uprising or another. With Jesus gaining in popularity, especially at the Passover, he knew that it would only be a matter of time before people were staging rebellions on his behalf.
Judas was his money handler and typically the one to interface with officials. He was instructed to lead the authorities to Jesus to defuse the whole situation. Jesus knew that he would be placed on trial in the Roman court once the Pharisee arrested him for claiming to be the Messiah - the "king."
Later, in Luke, Jesus continually reminds his disciples to pray in the garden so that they will not 'fall into temptation.' Upon his arrest, it is Peter who strikes at the guards with his sword, and Jesus tells him to stand down. The reason Peter denied knowing Jesus, later, is because the Roman authorities were looking to do a route on those associated with Jesus. The roman authorities would have been on high alert with the passover celebration, the Jews' general dislike of them, and the arrival of this rock-star like personality who was popular with the common people... now accused of being one of those "messiahs" who led militant rebellions. Anyone associated with this man would be considered culpable in conspiring for an armed uprising against the state.
Of course, Jesus was innocent; he planned no militant rebellion - but whether it occurred or not, the idea that the Jews could choose between the peaceful Jesus of Nazareth or the rebellion-leader Bar-Abbas, they chose rebellion.
In this sense - Jesus died because of an establishment that was corrupt and a people whose hearts were too darkened by a lust for war to see their own corruption.
In this sense - Jesus' death reveals the nature of God - that God would send a messiah meant to be sacrificed upon the flawed nature of man to give us the opportunity to comprehend the degree to which we can be led astray so that we can seek a path that is truly of God as opposed to one simply claimed to be his.
The Jews chose the rebel leader. They wanted war more than they wanted a spiritual teacher - and thus Jesus died, as he was fully intended to.
The death of Jesus is an opportunity for us to understand our own darkness. Jesus had been tempted by the devil while in the wilderness:
Matthew 4:
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
Jesus was tempted to become a warlord - tempted to do as others who claimed to be the Messiah had - to lead a rebellion and overthrow Rome's rule of Israel.
But there were more important things. The Jews' on desire for war and rebellion had made them blind to the teachings left for them, it had made them blind to their own injustices, and it had made them blind to God.
-Just as many such things do for us all. Jesus was the canary in the coal mine. If there was corruption and blindness in the Jewish system, he would die and sound the alarm before it was too late. The story of Jesus should make us stop and question what in our own lives we are or have been willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of our own personal ambitions - where we have been willing to put to death our own teachings in order to suit our preconceived notions.
Tho I see your point. This is not the only point on which the Bible is ambiguous. I've noticed that you're close to the muslim concepts on certain things. You should consider conversion
I think you have read far too much of your own Christian upbringing into Islam.
Muhammad makes numerous claims regarding scripture (allegedly dictated by Gabriel) that are downright factually incorrect while Muhammad continually challenges those 'of the book' to compare between what he claims and their own scripture... then makes boisterous claims about how people are teary-eyed over his revelations.
Allow me to contrast Jesus and Muhammad for you:
You must be registered for see links
9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.
9:14 Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people
9:15 And remove the fury in the believers' hearts. And Allah turns in forgiveness to whom He wills; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.
9:16 Do you think that you will be left [as you are] while Allah has not yet made evident those among you who strive [for His cause] and do not take other than Allah , His Messenger and the believers as intimates? And Allah is Acquainted with what you do.
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
4Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Surat At-Tawbah:
29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
30 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.
32 They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.
33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.
-----------------------------------
You must be registered for see links
2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
----------------------------------
Muhammad often represents the antithesis of Jesus' teachings. While it cannot be denied that God has ordered the Jews to war in the Old Testament, and that he would continue to conditionally order individuals to war, it is clear from Muhammad's own speeches that he has embraced the notion of military conquest, something Jesus, himself, recognized as a temptation of the devil before rejecting.
The stated objective of Islam - the subjugation of all to one religion - is precisely the thing Jesus, himself, warned his disciples against and is also what is cautioned against in John's Revelations (or... someone named John... - some interesting scholarly dispute over who, exactly, wrote Revelations - as well as some of the other imagery that is used for its symbolism hinting that the individual in question may have been a non-Jewish convert to Christianity).
Islam embraces most of the facets that Jesus, the prophets before him (specifically, Isaiah), and those among his followers who could also be considered prophets warned against.
The god of Islam is built around submission and adherence to one man's dictation. It contains commands against taking non-believers as friends, and contains rules for how the spoils of war are to be distributed. Muhammad, himself, continually makes just-in-time revisions to the Qu'ran to allow him additional wives (after a beautiful woman presents herself to him in marriage, Muhammad quickly receives a revelation that he is exempt from the 4-wives rule... he can now have eight - Aisha even comments to him that she worries God hastens to fulfill Muhammad's desires), to make exemptions from the requirements of Jihad for injury (after someone who is injured says: "Uh... so what about me...").
Even if I am in occasional agreement with some of the Muslim criticism of the dogmatic interpretation of biblical scripture - I can't agree with the founding principles of Islam. I have discerned between the scriptures and found Muhammad's dictations to be the speech of the ancient dragon.
Again, from Revelation 13:
11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
I'm not going to bother discerning which beast is which. The entire system is eerily similar to socialism/fascism and many aspects of Islam regarding subjugation. Be one ideology and another a specific system - or just those who service that ideology - the concepts are much the same and the take-away the same.
6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7 He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
8 A second angel followed and said, “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great,’[a] which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.”
9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.
From Revelations 14.
The take-away, here, is the same.
This is a warning regarding conquest and the establishment of hegemony.
Btw JWs hold the view that Jesus died for our sins.
Yes, but they also do not believe that he was 'God in human form.' Which is a view I support. They, also, have a somewhat different interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death, since he is not considered, himself, to be 'the Son' as a divine entity.
Of course, they also believe rather strictly in pacifism - which is something I do not believe in. While I do believe that one should be cautious to embrace militancy, it is also the case that militancy has been commanded by God in the past, and that it is foolish to believe there will never again be a call to arms from God.
I should have gone a bit more into what the Jewish beliefs of the time were, and done a bit more linking in of information on that... but I've spent long enough on this thing for the thread to have been deleted for whatever reason while I've been working on this post.
I'll have to reconstruct my response, more or less, at some point in time... I put like five hours into the dang thing. There were a lot of hadith to look up and verify, as well as some fun work with arabic.
I answered the two specific hadiths you quoted, what you could possibly do is to bring more hadiths, which is digressing. I don't have eternity to play this game of you quoting thousands of hadiths if you may, then expect me to look for their context, explanations, etc. I also just spent 5 hrs yesterday making a 20-pages long response to a David Wood debate, him bringing up non-existing hadiths, misquoting scholars, looking up the correlating hadiths to the cited ones...etc. It's hell of a lot of work, and I'd encourage you to adopt the perspective of 'the devil's advocate' and look for refutals yourself...
What is very important to keep in mind about the Bible is that it is the written account of the author.
However, what we also must keep in mind is the perceived role of the Messiah within the Jewish religion and teaching.
According to Judaic belief, when people died, we went into a sort of catatonic state of 'death.' This remains the case until the arrival of the Messiah, whose presence and fulfillment brings about the spiritual resurrection of those who have died.
I am making a very general statement, here, there is more detail to it, but there's a particular chapter in John where Jesus and the Pharisee are discussing how Moses died. I'll reference it a bit, later.
It's also important to distinguish between what is considered to be the "economic model of the Cross" and the mission/purpose of the Messiah. The economic model of the Cross insists that Christ's death was necessary to cleanse our sins.
There is an excellent explanation of this here:
You must be registered for see links
"I’m especially talking about those tidy explanations of the cross known as “atonement theories.” I find most of them inadequate; others I find repellent. Particularly abhorrent are those theories that portray the Father of Jesus as a pagan deity who can only be placated by the barbarism of child sacrifice. The god who is mollified by throwing a virgin into a volcano or by nailing his son to a tree is not the Abba of Jesus!
Neither is the death of Jesus a kind of quid pro quo by which God gains the necessary capital to forgive sinners. No! Jesus does not save us from God; Jesus reveals God! Jesus does not provide God with the capacity to forgive; Jesus reveals God as forgiving love. An “economic model” of the cross just won’t work. It’s not as if God is saying, “Look, I’d love to forgive you, but I’ve got to pay off Justice first, and, you know how she is, she’s a tough goddess, she requires due payment.” This understanding of the cross begs the question of who exactly is in charge — the Father of Jesus or some abstract ideal called “Justice”?
When we confess with Paul that “Christ died for our sins,” we don’t mean that God required the vicious murder of his Son in order to forgive. How would that work anyway? Did God have some scale of torture that once met would “satisfy his wrath?” Think it through and you’ll see the problem. Was death not enough to satisfy this god? Did it have to be death by crucifixion? Did torture have to be part of the equation? And how does that work? Was there a minimum number of lashes required in the scourging? Did the thorny crown have to have a certain number of thorns in order for this god to call the scales balanced? "
You have to consider the actual story of Jesus within its socio-political backdrop.
Jesus was an inspiring young spiritual-religious leader who descended from the line of David. His father was a contract carpenter working to help with the construction of the Temple, and Jesus spent a considerable amount of time studying with the Rabbi and Pharisee while his father worked on the Temple. Many of these stories come from the Apocrypha - but there is little reason to doubt those specific accounts.
Jesus knew the scriptures and the law as well or better than most of the Pharisee at the time. The Pharisee had erected an aristocratic system within the religion built from selective application of Mosaic Law and scriptural teachings. In a very basic sense, they essentially began to teach that the ticket to salvation would be found through the purchase of sacrificial animals (among other things). The Pharisee owned much of the productive land in Israel at the time, and the Pharisee directly controlled many of the laws at the time.
Jesus, very astutely, recognized this system as abusive of God's teachings and began preaching against the Pharisee. Matthew 23 is a perfect example of this. He taught from within the Old Testament that God was not beholden to the institutions of men and that it was necessary for each individual to seek God, not just to dedicate one's self to the institutions man erects around God (I'm paraphrasing).
This made him a political enemy of the Phraisee. Of course, he was careful not to openly declare himself as the Messiah.
The Jews were expecting a warlord Messiah to free them from Rome. There were numerous individuals who would create militia-backed uprisings while claiming to be the Messiah. Anyone the Jews accepted as a Messiah was essentially the "King" - and Roman law frowned strongly upon anyone other than the Emperor of Rome being a king.
Eventually, Jesus was arrested and tried by Pilate - who found no veracity to the charge that he was guilty of plotting a military uprising. When presented with the option of releasing Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Bar Abbas (the leader of a Jewish rebellion force) - the Jews chose Bar Abbas.
(There is some interesting debate on this with regards to the story of the release at the Governor's Banquet - it's worth reading through some of the different theories on who Bar Abbas was, whether or not the story is accurate, etc).
If I could be allowed to advance my own theory - it would be that the betrayal Jesus spoke about at the Last Supper was not, in fact, Judas - but, instead, the fact that there would be those who would attempt to throw a militant uprising in his name. Jesus' message of non-violence was hard for the Jews to accept, particularly where Rome was concerned.
The account of the selection between Jesus of Nazaraeth and Jesus Bar Abbas is symbolic of the Jews choosing between the acceptance of Jesus' peaceful message or the Jews attempting to use Jesus to advance their ambitions against Rome - perhaps told by Matthew amid a sensitive political time when many of Jesus' followers were in fear of further persecution by Rome or in fear of retaliation from militant factions who had taken to Jesus.
Jesus spoke, during the Last Supper, of those who would betray him. That is classically interpreted to be Judas - but it should be noted what he says in Matthew 24 and is also recounted in Mark 13:
" 1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
4Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains. "
Mark recounts:
" 5Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
9“You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. "
Jesus was specifically warning against those who would choose to rebel against Rome.
Read Luke's account of Jesus' Last Supper and arrest:
You must be registered for see links
"31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”
34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied. "
Classical interpretations of this scene, I argue, are only partially correct. Jesus is not naming Judas as a betrayer, here. He is naming those who would commit to war among them as those who are betraying him. Note that he also seems to do a drive-by on Peter after Peter insists he would serve time in Jail for Jesus.
I'm also 'reading' a sense of some tongue-in-cheek comments from Jesus when he contrasts when he first led the disciples against what is happening, currently. It's as if he is asking them to consider what they are doing now versus what they have done, then. When they present the swords, he cuts off the conversation.
John recounts that Judas was instructed by Jesus to 'do what he would do.'
Consider, for a moment, that Jesus knew his disciples were planning on turning Jesus' teachings into a militant uprising against Rome. Keep in mind that the Jews were very much expecting the Messiah to be a warlord to free them from Rome. There was a new Messiah every few months who was leading some variety of uprising or another. With Jesus gaining in popularity, especially at the Passover, he knew that it would only be a matter of time before people were staging rebellions on his behalf.
Judas was his money handler and typically the one to interface with officials. He was instructed to lead the authorities to Jesus to defuse the whole situation. Jesus knew that he would be placed on trial in the Roman court once the Pharisee arrested him for claiming to be the Messiah - the "king."
Later, in Luke, Jesus continually reminds his disciples to pray in the garden so that they will not 'fall into temptation.' Upon his arrest, it is Peter who strikes at the guards with his sword, and Jesus tells him to stand down. The reason Peter denied knowing Jesus, later, is because the Roman authorities were looking to do a route on those associated with Jesus. The roman authorities would have been on high alert with the passover celebration, the Jews' general dislike of them, and the arrival of this rock-star like personality who was popular with the common people... now accused of being one of those "messiahs" who led militant rebellions. Anyone associated with this man would be considered culpable in conspiring for an armed uprising against the state.
Of course, Jesus was innocent; he planned no militant rebellion - but whether it occurred or not, the idea that the Jews could choose between the peaceful Jesus of Nazareth or the rebellion-leader Bar-Abbas, they chose rebellion.
In this sense - Jesus died because of an establishment that was corrupt and a people whose hearts were too darkened by a lust for war to see their own corruption.
In this sense - Jesus' death reveals the nature of God - that God would send a messiah meant to be sacrificed upon the flawed nature of man to give us the opportunity to comprehend the degree to which we can be led astray so that we can seek a path that is truly of God as opposed to one simply claimed to be his.
The Jews chose the rebel leader. They wanted war more than they wanted a spiritual teacher - and thus Jesus died, as he was fully intended to.
The death of Jesus is an opportunity for us to understand our own darkness. Jesus had been tempted by the devil while in the wilderness:
Matthew 4:
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
Jesus was tempted to become a warlord - tempted to do as others who claimed to be the Messiah had - to lead a rebellion and overthrow Rome's rule of Israel.
But there were more important things. The Jews' on desire for war and rebellion had made them blind to the teachings left for them, it had made them blind to their own injustices, and it had made them blind to God.
-Just as many such things do for us all. Jesus was the canary in the coal mine. If there was corruption and blindness in the Jewish system, he would die and sound the alarm before it was too late. The story of Jesus should make us stop and question what in our own lives we are or have been willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of our own personal ambitions - where we have been willing to put to death our own teachings in order to suit our preconceived notions.
I very well know about the Jews' expectations of the Messiah and such (of course the specific articles you quoted are new to me).
I don't see though how exactly do all these refute Jesus talking of himself as a ransom for our sins in the sense Paul and later christians interpreted it. What I conclude from it is that you can read into and out of the Bible whatever you wish.
I also wonder why then you think of Jesus as an anarchist? In what sense? As you admit, he pretty much didn't mean to rebel against the Roman empire. He only meant to reform judaism. Isn't it anachronism to read your current conecept/our modern concepts of anarchism into Jesus's activity?
I think you have read far too much of your own Christian upbringing into Islam.
Not quite. Unlike you, I can drop my cultural bias and adopt different paradigms and examine them from within. I even refused to believe in God, as Christian theology as a whole didn't make sense- neither the orthodox/catholic, neither the protestant/JW. And tbh your views are not christian. A christian is someone who follows Christ. I don't think he'd approve of your promoting the nuking of 1,4 billion people, quickly so that people can't complain about it...
But it's fine with me if you interpret his teachings the way you do- thinking outside of the box is nice. You gave your reasons- fair enough. I can't disagree and I don't really mean to. But what I see is that you have to refuse the Bible as a whole being God's work. As you said- it's an inspirational philosophy. (At least to you).
Sorry but not that, not this time, not again. I just watched a muslim vs christian debate on trinity vs tawhid, and the christian guy in his closing statement also encouraged people to compare surah 9 verse 5 with Matthew 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount).
It's demagogue and unfair.
I look at the theologies as a whole. I don't need to compare certain verses. In fact, I don't need to compare them at all. I haven't read the Bible in about 4 yrs (of course I do read /hear some passages when doing my research, listening to debates...etc. But it's not a routine. ) The point is, I have never believed in the Bible or christianity. As I refused it as a whole, there was not much to read into islam. You might bring up that regardless of that, I must have still been affected by western values and such. Well, which values? I don't have a problem with killing apostates, whipping fornicators, stoning adulterers (in fact my father would have deserved this), or chopping off hands. Of course, that is if the muslim state applies these as a result of ijtihad and consensus. Of course it's possible to adopt a less strict interpretation- and guess what, I'm also fine with it. It doesn't affect my views on theology, or my belief in God, or whatever. I don't need to apologize to you for the Ottomans doing this or ISIS doing that. We'll all have to account to God for our deeds, and He'll decide in what we have differed. You have your values- I have mine. But as you can see, I'm not that affected by the western "Disney-look", applying it on islam. The West is a diverse, complex entity. So is Islam. You look at hundreds of hadiths- you say they prove islam is violent. I look at the same hadiths- and I infer there must be a good reason for the Prophet pbuh doing this or that- and I almost always find that reason. (If I don't, it's either coz the hadith is simply weak, or it doesn't even exist , or I can't find an English commentary but I can always use analogy.) Btw for your answer that was supposed to include a game with arabic, don't bother. I use the word by word translation of the Quran, as well as several English translations, and I think I pretty much covered all the possible meanings and explanations to 'prevail' or 'manifest'. If you don't accept it- well, you don't have to.
Even if I am in occasional agreement with some of the Muslim criticism of the dogmatic interpretation of biblical scripture - I can't agree with the founding principles of Islam.
I guessed so, but the problem is that you have assumed what this founding principle is, and you see everything else in this distorted light.
Yes, but they also do not believe that he was 'God in human form.' Which is a view I support. They, also, have a somewhat different interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' death, since he is not considered, himself, to be 'the Son' as a divine entity.
Of course, they also believe rather strictly in pacifism - which is something I do not believe in. While I do believe that one should be cautious to embrace militancy, it is also the case that militancy has been commanded by God in the past, and that it is foolish to believe there will never again be a call to arms from God.
Oh, so why do you have a problem with muslims having been called to fight?
I should have gone a bit more into what the Jewish beliefs of the time were, and done a bit more linking in of information on that... but I've spent long enough on this thing for the thread to have been deleted for whatever reason while I've been working on this post.
I answered the two specific hadiths you quoted, what you could possibly do is to bring more hadiths, which is digressing. I don't have eternity to play this game of you quoting thousands of hadiths if you may, then expect me to look for their context, explanations, etc. I also just spent 5 hrs yesterday making a 20-pages long response to a David Wood debate, him bringing up non-existing hadiths, misquoting scholars, looking up the correlating hadiths to the cited ones...etc. It's hell of a lot of work, and I'd encourage you to adopt the perspective of 'the devil's advocate' and look for refutals yourself...
Is it not a problem that so much of your prophet's behavior requires 'special attention paid' to the context?
You insist that you somehow have the correct meaning, yet you, yourself, are simply asserting at this point that you do and that I am wrong.
I also brought forth more verses from the Qu'ran. I've ventured a bit farther outside of the primarily used nine.
The problem is that I -have- played the role of Devils' advocate and looked for alternative explanations. While they are there, they require such an exceptional amount of quote-mining and outright dismissal of both the obvious intention and the historical facts.
Awareness and understanding are two different things, young grasshopper.
I very well know about the Jews' expectations of the Messiah and such (of course the specific articles you quoted are new to me).
I don't see though how exactly do all these refute Jesus talking of himself as a ransom for our sins in the sense Paul and later christians interpreted it. What I conclude from it is that you can read into and out of the Bible whatever you wish.
Even Paul's interpretation of it is notably different from the idea that Jesus died in order for the concept of forgiveness to work. Jesus was not necessarily a ransom payment delivered to God, but one who sacrificed his own life to save that of his comrades.
Consider what would have happened if the Jews had organized rebellions in his name. It would have resulted in the roman army roflstomping most of Israel. Jesus was making it very clear by handing himself over to the Romans that the Jews had other problems they needed to fix (like the corrupt Pharisee) before they entertained any such notions of an independent state. He was making it clear that God was not pleased with what was taking place in Israel.
I also wonder why then you think of Jesus as an anarchist? In what sense? As you admit, he pretty much didn't mean to rebel against the Roman empire. He only meant to reform judaism. Isn't it anachronism to read your current conecept/our modern concepts of anarchism into Jesus's activity?
Just because you are an anarchist does not mean you are constantly in support of armed revolt.
Jesus was very outspoken against the Jewish authorities, and he encouraged the concept of self-organization and the right to exercise individual action, particularly within a spiritual sense. He encouraged people to tend to each other under their own power and their own authority (or, basically, made the scriptural and proverbial case that God grants us such authority).
He saw Rome as a largely external thing. "Give to Caesar what is due Caesar, and give to God what is due God." Many of his teachings focus upon the forgiveness of sins as opposed to the application of law. He specifically mentions that the Jews often leverage laws against each other for social and political gain. This was not what the laws were intended for, and it was better to forgive than it was to look for reasons to accuse. "You point out the speck in the eye of someone else while ignoring the stone in yours."
Not quite. Unlike you, I can drop my cultural bias and adopt different paradigms and examine them from within. I even refused to believe in God, as Christian theology as a whole didn't make sense- neither the orthodox/catholic, neither the protestant/JW. And tbh your views are not christian. A christian is someone who follows Christ. I don't think he'd approve of your promoting the nuking of 1,4 billion people, quickly so that people can't complain about it...
A Christian is someone who believes Christ was the Messiah.
Matthew 10 has the following account:
You must be registered for see links
9 “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— 10 no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. 11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24 “The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!
26 “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c] "
Jesus knew, well, that the path the Jews wished to walk led to Roman military intervention. He knew well that those who spoke against rebellion would be persecuted and divided across family lines. He knew that regions who rejected the message against peace would be hot-beds of militant sentiment that would be crushed by the Romans.
Note that the Roman action against the Jews was counted among God's judgment.
Revelation 14 has this:
You must be registered for see links
14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.
17 Another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18 Still another angel, who had charge of the fire, came from the altar and called in a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, “Take your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the earth’s vine, because its grapes are ripe.” 19 The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20 They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.[c]
Sometimes, the call in the Heavens is to reap what is ripe.
Other times, the call is to self-sacrifice.
Your eyes are still blind, your ears are still deaf. There are many voices sounding throughout the heavens, all as equally important, and all begging for someone to heed the call, and some people are called for by name. There is a reason I will allow myself to become personally involved in the affairs of individuals. How I've spoken of her potential is what I've also seen marked upon you. I can only guess as to which call will ultimately be the one you answer - I just hear the one that is asking someone to tell you to pick up the damned phone, already.
You didn't reject the Bible. You simply realized that it contained far more than the narrow directives people often attempt to derive as the only way to live by it, and rejected those.
But it's fine with me if you interpret his teachings the way you do- thinking outside of the box is nice. You gave your reasons- fair enough. I can't disagree and I don't really mean to. But what I see is that you have to refuse the Bible as a whole being God's work. As you said- it's an inspirational philosophy. (At least to you).
No, I don't have to refuse that it is God's work. I just have to be aware that God works through people and does not consider the free will he gave human beings to be an error.
Sorry but not that, not this time, not again. I just watched a muslim vs christian debate on trinity vs tawhid, and the christian guy in his closing statement also encouraged people to compare surah 9 verse 5 with Matthew 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount).
We can compare other sections, if you wish. I'm running short on time in this particular response (have a friend to go pick up in another city). Hell - we can even compare the Qu'ran against itself. That's always fun, considering it claims itself to be the clear book and to be the final word on scripture.
I look at the theologies as a whole. I don't need to compare certain verses. In fact, I don't need to compare them at all. I haven't read the Bible in about 4 yrs (of course I do read /hear some passages when doing my research, listening to debates...etc. But it's not a routine. ) The point is, I have never believed in the Bible or christianity. As I refused it as a whole, there was not much to read into islam. You might bring up that regardless of that, I must have still been affected by western values and such. Well, which values? I don't have a problem with killing apostates, whipping fornicators, stoning adulterers (in fact my father would have deserved this), or chopping off hands. Of course, that is if the muslim state applies these as a result of ijtihad and consensus. Of course it's possible to adopt a less strict interpretation- and guess what, I'm also fine with it. It doesn't affect my views on theology, or my belief in God, or whatever.
You need to let go of your hatred for your father. Seeking answers that include vengeance against his behavior is little different than a certain Ninja seeking answers that include vengeance against herself.
Your choice of Islam has less to do with who you are and more to do with the fact that you hate your father. You took to Islam because of its strictness and rigidness that stands opposed to how your father behaved despite what he preached upon you, as well as its very direct line of instruction regarding behavior. This was what you caught on to during our debates and what drew you to the facets of Islam.
You didn't answer why you are here. You simply answered what to do. The god of Islam does not give you purpose through which to live, he gives you instructions by which to act. He gives you a job to fulfill and obey.
You've not approached this from the blank slate you think you have, and you have not reconciled your character as completely as you believe you have.
You claim to not care unless she were to become a fellow believer, but this is not in your nature. You must learn to love something you are willing to let go of - something you can't control and are given no guarantees over. I caution you, strongly, to not cut people out of your life and to not discard compassion for others as your religion would have you do.
That, or you were just saying it to get a rise out of me, but you have obviously been struggling with what to do in regards for your feelings.
I don't need to apologize to you for the Ottomans doing this or ISIS doing that. We'll all have to account to God for our deeds, and He'll decide in what we have differed. You have your values- I have mine. But as you can see, I'm not that affected by the western "Disney-look", applying it on islam. The West is a diverse, complex entity. So is Islam. You look at hundreds of hadiths- you say they prove islam is violent. I look at the same hadiths- and I infer there must be a good reason for the Prophet pbuh doing this or that- and I almost always find that reason. (If I don't, it's either coz the hadith is simply weak, or it doesn't even exist , or I can't find an English commentary but I can always use analogy.) Btw for your answer that was supposed to include a game with arabic, don't bother. I use the word by word translation of the Quran, as well as several English translations, and I think I pretty much covered all the possible meanings and explanations to 'prevail' or 'manifest'. If you don't accept it- well, you don't have to.
That said - you've just admitted to doing exactly what I suggested you were doing. "There must be a reason..." - there is always a reason. The question is to what principles that reason speaks. There's always a reason for rape. Muhammad, himself, justifies both rape and infidelity.
You must be registered for see links
" Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
I saw Abu Sa`id and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Sa`id said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Bani Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence." "
Sure - there's a reason for it.
But to what principles does it speak? What does that reason serve?
That is why the Ottomans are relevant. That is why the actions of ISIS are relevant. You don't have to apologize for the actions of others, but you do have to consider that with which you associate and those with whom you stand.
I guessed so, but the problem is that you have assumed what this founding principle is, and you see everything else in this distorted light.
Again, to what principles does it speak? Whom or what is served?
Islam's 'call to fight' is a call to conquest. It is not a limited historical context. The Qu'ran makes appropriations for how loot from war is to be distributed. It prescribes for the status of slavery and permits slave owners to pursue *** with their slaves outside of their marriages, and the Hadith suggest that "pulling out" is unnecessary.
This is pure service to the carnal desires of men as opposed to a pursuit of spiritual enlightenment, personal improvement, or societal function. I would even argue it contributes to a dysfunction of society.
Sigh...just what I expected. Making assumptions about me, distorting my words...etc. It's ad hominem argumentation at best. Just the usual trying to push your opponent onto defense when in fact there is nothing to defend as you are not a challenge. So far everything you've claimed, I answered. Sure you quote the Quran, but you ignore certain parts of it. Just like you take Jesus's teachings and ignore like half of the Bible that don't support your views. But even if for the sake of argument I go with your interpretation -as I said, it's nice that you have your own interpretation- it still means that the Church, that was also just interpreting the Bible, well, turned out to be the 'rider of the harlot' . So after all, it is possible to read out (exegesis) and in (eisegesis) the Bible whatever you wish. Inbefore you say 'oh that's true for muslism as well'- I never denied that. As I said, islam is a diverse and complex entity. There are good muslims, there are bad muslims. It's you insisting on all muslims being potential terrorist and mentally unstable useful idiots, while bad christians are not really christians. So it's you advocating the no true scotsman fallacy.
"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."
Matthew 16:24
As I said, a Christian is someone who follows Christ. You don't.
I don't hate my father xD I used to. But I have come to realize that whatever bad things he did, had an important role in molding my personality and it was all part of a greater plan. And I do acknowledge that he was right all the time about God's existence. Now he never studied islam, tho. Actually I'd call my atheistic period as rebellion. had I wanted to rebel, I could have stayed an atheist (thus keeping to rebel against God), or I could have chosen to be a catholic or anything else, starting from nazism through New Age, or join ISIS (after all, you might say I'm just an unstable useful idiot that islam needs), so really...pls...don't degrade me so much. But I was humbled by God. I survived, and it took me a while to realize that there must have been smtg I had done wrong so I was ready to try a different perspective and every piece of the puzzle is in its place now. I suggest you do the same. I turned to God and He led me to islam. Coincidence? The Satan's work? A young grasshopper taking the wrong turn? Allah knows best
See, you're bringing a random hadith to prove islam is violent. But can't you read? In this hadith, the Prophet pbuh said 'it's better not to do'.
He also said in the same book of the Sahih:
"Allah's Apostle said, "He who has a slave-girl and educates and treats her nicely and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward."
You must be registered for see links
Banu Mustaliq is also mentioned there, so inbefore you start bringing them up - tho I have already explained that in another post of mine-,
here is what happened:
"The Banu al Mustaliq, allied to the Quraish of Mecca, were the subject to a pre-emptive attack by Muhammad in the month of Sha'ban of the year 626 (5 AH).Muhammad had received news that the tribe was gathering together against the Muslims under the leadership of al-Harith ibn Abi Dirar. "
You must be registered for see links
Again, you can abuse the Gish Gallop and bring me thousands of hadiths you copy paste from anti islamic sites (despite you quote sunnah.com, I wouldn't be surprised if you first found the reference on anti-silamic sites- but I don't wanna make your mistake of making stupid accusations), but I don't see anything wrong there.
Anyway, the Bible also condones slavery, but I guess context doesn't matter there. *sarcasm*
Of course context is important. The Bible is a historical account, which does contain the circumstances. The Quran is a shorter scripture that doesn't mention all the deeds of the Prophet and all the circumstances. But what the Quran mentions is that muslims were attacked first and were persecuted.
And sorry but you talking about principles I find to be hypocritical. What principles do your reasons to call for the murder of billions speak of? Oh I know, muslims are trying to impose an oppressive system on others, and control is a form of evil coz that's what your research on Jesus and taoism conclude. So, to get rid of oppression and control, you want to oppress others. I see. Makes perfect sense. But when muslims are ordered to remove oppression, they're evil. Talking about double standards...
The basic principle of islam, is to return to the original monotheism. As you admit, the jewish system got corrupted. The christian guy in the debate I mentioned spoke of the jews or at least some of them having a binitarian view of God by the time of Jesus. If that's true- well, the monotheism was spoiled. Christians turned that into trinitarianism, so that was spoiled even further. Even you admit that Jesus is not God, you even deny that he died for our sins (I infer you also deny the original sin too), so basically you accept islam's teaching on the subject. Instead of holding these heretical views, you should revise your prejudice and think about why you expect muslims not to defend themselves in an already violent world, whiel you preach Jesus, who again- wouldn't really approve of your call for genocide. Ironically, the Jesus you preach is not the christian Jesus but the muslim one. And if you're trying to justify genocide, looking for reasons- you might as well just accept my reasons to accept those hadiths and convert to islam. (Note that I didn't say islam is for genocide, I was just reflecting upon you having a problem with me looking for reasons as to why the Prophet did this or that. [If by any chance you were going to mention Banu Qurayza, well they betrayed teh Medinan Constitution- again what is the punishment for treason in the US? And what did you say about all crimes are to be punished by death, or else there is no law? I don't hear you well enough? Oh, yeah. That's what you said. Talking about moderacy. Honestly, how can you live with this cognitive dissonance? Do you have a split personality?]) So it's quite funny you're telling muslims to find another religion if they want to hold on to peaceful principles, while you yourself are a closet muslim.
I kindly ask you again to stop quoting new and new hadiths as I'll always find an explanation that you may not accept- but it's not my problem. You'll always find them violent- I won't.
Btw if you wanna make assumptions about me and my family, pls do it in private. You know where to find me.
Oh just one more thing, because as you also not just make your posts to me but to anyone who reads them now or in the future, well, let me say to everyone that- despite unlike you, I'm not the type who'd improvise a 500 pages long biography when asked 'what's up?'-, but well, let me just say that I had no particular reason to start studying islam. I thought all religions are the same, all are stupid. When I first made an appointment at the local mosque the scholar was late an hour, and I could have just left and say 'jeez these muslims are so unreliable'. But I stayed. Then I skipped a few months as I was having exams and I had already read the Quran and asked my questions, so I had no reason to go back for more- except that I started to have faith. God led me there, I believe for hell of a good reason (hope fully to avoid hell), and this is really the only purpose I'm here now- otherwise I by myself failed. You say this is not me- uhm, ok? It's kinda funny coz we all have the fitrah. I never liked alcohol f.e, I hadn't drunk alcohol for 1,5 yrs b e f o r e my conversion, as I told you I've never been to parties, etc. Not just coz of my father. When I moved to a different city for uni, I could have done all that. But I already thought it's wrong. THAT I felt wouldn't be me. Then it was good to learn that it's because of the fitrah. It's also coz of the fitrah that while you don't accept much of the Bible- at least not as traditional chritianity teaches (in which case I wonder by what right you're critcizing me for being a 'moderate' muslim: not that ISIS or the like would represent orthodoxy, but I'm applying your perspective now and again I conclude you're being hypocritical)- your views somehow seem to coincide with islam's teachings. If only you dropped the cultural bias, you'd accept the rest of its teachings too. (And no, I'm not just rebelling against western culture- I could have just become a buddhist or whatever else, in which case I guess you wouldn't mock me for not being myself- because again, double standards. But I'm a muslim so of course I'm not myself *sarcasm*)...smh.
And again, I' d appreciate to continue this in private -_-
PS.
"Awareness and understanding are two different things, young grasshopper."
Your understanding may very well be only a misunderstanding. (I couldn't leave it without an answer But seriously, you already misquoted Jesus back then, or even Aristotle, so how can you understand smtg they didn't even say...)
PPS.
I've just watched this debate on Bible vs Quran, so I suggest you watch this, if you'd so like to compare the two.
