Questions about the Bible/Christianity

[Ironbeard]

101 Questions about Christianity

1. If Jesus's mission was to the lost sheep of Israel, why was it confined to Palestine where only two of the original tribes had settled? Did that mean that Jesus had failed in his mission?
2. Why should Jesus specifically forbid, on the one hand, preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles (Matthew 7:6, 15:24, 26) and yet on the other, tell the disciples to teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? (Matthew 28:19)
3. Why did Jesus prohibit the Gospel from being preached to the Gentiles during his ministry (Matthew 10:5, 7:6, 15:24-26) but after his 'resurrection' tell them to preach the Gospel to the whole world? (Mark 16:15)
If Jesus really had made the latter statement, why was there such a fierce debate within the early Church (and particularly between Peter and Paul) as to whether the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles? (Acts 15:6-30)
4. Out of all the signs that Jesus could have given about himself, he chose to give the sign of Jonah: This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah. (Luke 11:29, Matthew 12:39, Matthew 16) Jonah was swallowed alive by a whale and remained in its belly alive for three days. For Jesus to have properly fulfilled the prophecy, he would need to enter the tomb alive and come out alive. Why should Jesus give this, of all signs, if he was to die and be resurrected?
5. If Jesus's message was for the whole of mankind, why did he forbid his disciples to preach to the Gentiles? (Matthew 10:5-6)
6. When Jesus was asked what the only way was to true salvation, he replied: keep the Commandments (Matthew 19:17). The first of the Commandments was to believe in the Oneness of God (Exodus 20:3). Why did Jesus answer so if he believed in and was part of the Trinity? Why did he not refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?
7. Jesus said that he had not come to change the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17). The Law of Moses teaches that there is one God (Exodus 20:3). If Jesus was introducing the concept of Trinity, why did he not say that he was changing the Law of Moses or introducing a different understanding of it?
8. Jesus prophesied that men of his generation would not pass away without witnessing his second coming and the falling of stars (Mark 9:1, 13:30). Why was this prophecy unfulfilled? Why was it that Jesus did not return within the lifetime of his generation?
9. Why did Jesus forbid the disciples from calling people fools yet called the Jewish leaders with names like vipers and children of adultery? Is it conceivable that a Divine Being would behave in this way?
10. According to Luke, when the Jews tried Jesus they asked him Are you the son of God? Jesus replied you say that I am (Luke 22:70) which could mean: you say that I am but I do not. If his divinity was something he came to tell the world, why did he not plainly say yes instead of couching his answer in ambiguous terms?
11. In the Old Testament, the term Son of God was applied to David (Psalms 89:27), the nation of Israel (Exodus 4:22), the children of Israel (Psalms 82:6), and Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:10). Jesus also used it for the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9). If Jesus was referring to himself as the Son of God in the literal sense, why did he not make it clear that he was differentiating between a symbolic reference and a literal meaning of the term?
12. Jesus was the Messiah, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. He frequently made reference to himself as the suffering servant foretold in the Book of Isaiah (Matthew 8:17 & Isaiah 53:4; Luke 2:30 & Isaiah 52:10; Luke 22:37 & Isaiah 53:12). The Messiah of the Old Testament was, however, promised by God that he would not be killed (Psalms 34:19, Isaiah 53:10). How was it, therefore, that the Jews had succeeded in killing the Messiah if Jesus died on the cross?
13. If Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him, why did he continue to permit him as a disciple? Why did he not tell the other disciples so that Judas could be excluded from his closest circle of followers?
14. If Jesus knew that one of his disciples would betray him, why should he say that all twelve disciples would sit upon twelve thrones? (Matthew 19:28)
15. If Jesus knew that he was to die on the cross, why did he spend all night praying in the Garden of Gethsemane seeking deliverance: Father if it is possible may this cup be taken from me? (Matthew 26:39)
16. Jesus had taught that man's prayers are answered (Matthew 21:22). Why was not Jesus's prayer answered in the Garden of Gethsemane? What effect would this incident have on the faith of his disciples and followers to see that a prayer had not been answered contrary to what Jesus had taught?
17. If Jesus believed that his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane would not be heard, why did he tell his disciples earlier that prayers are answered?: Would any of you who are fathers give your son a stone when he asked for bread (Matthew 7:9-10) which means that God hears the prayers of man more than a father answers the wishes of his children and Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you. And whatever you ask in your prayers, you will receive, if you have faith. (Matthew 21:22; John 11:41,42)
18. If Jesus's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane was not to be heard, why was it something that he wanted the disciples to witness? If the prayer was not to be heard, what useful purpose does this story serve?
19. Why should Matthew, Mark and Luke all report (Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42) that Jesus asked for the cup of suffering to be passed if possible yet John (John 18:11) reports that Jesus hastened for the crucifixion saying shall I not drink the cup the Father hath given me?
20. Why did Pontius Pilate just simply ignore his wife's plea to have nothing to do with Jesus on account of her bad dream? (Matthew 27:19) If the very mission of Jesus was to suffer death, why should God Almighty show a dream to Pilate's wife which would cause her to try and persuade her husband to release Jesus? Would not that appear to counter God's own plan?
21. If Pilate really wanted Jesus to die on the cross, why would he fix the crucifixion on a Friday evening knowing that the Jews would have to take him down before Sabbath and that such a little time on the cross was insufficient for him to die?
22. If Jesus knew all along that he was destined to be crucified to death (indeed if that was his purpose in life), why did he exclaim on the cross Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani meaning my God my God why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)
23. If Jesus was about to die, how was he able to say in a clear loud and audible voice that he was thirsty? (John 19:28)
24. Why are Jesus's words on the cross: Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani (Matthew 27:46) reported in their original Aramaic form? Could it be that Jesus's helpless cry left such a vivid impression of a man seemingly bereft of hope that anyone who heard them would remember the exact words?
25. Vinegar is often considered to have a stimulating effect, rather similar to smelling salts. Why, in Jesus's case, did it suddenly lead to his death? (John 19:29, 30)
26. How could an onlooker tell the difference between a man on the cross who had died and a man who had fainted (Mark 15:39) particularly when it is reported that it was dark at that time? (Mark 15:33, Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44)
27. If Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross, why did his body release blood and water, since blood does not flow at all from a dead body? (John 19:34)
28. Why did Jesus die before the other two who were crucified with him even though the legs of the other two were broken to hasten death? (John 19:32)
29. It is reported that dead saints came out of their graves and made themselves known to many (Matthew 27:52). When the Jews saw this, why did they not immediately profess faith in Jesus? Where did these saints go? Who did they see? Why is there no account of this story elsewhere other than in Matthew's Gospel?
30. If the above story of saints rising from the dead is not based on an actual historical event, what other statements are there in the Gospels which are not based on actual historical facts?
31. Jesus said that the killing of prophets ended with the killing of Zacharias (Matthew 23:35-36). How was it, therefore, that the Jews had succeeded in killing another prophet?
32. Crucifixion was meant to be an accursed death (Deuteronomy 21:23). If Jesus was crucified, did that mean he also suffered an accursed death?
33. Why was it that a Roman soldier was so readily prepared to allow Joseph (a subjected citizen) to take down Jesus's body from the cross without checking and without Joseph having any apparent lawful authority?
34. Why is there is no direct account by Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus that Jesus was dead when he was taken down from the cross? Surely, this eye-witness account would have settled the matter beyond dispute?
35. Why should Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus take so much trouble to recover the body of Jesus when this would have been the duty of the nearest relative?
36. Why did Pilate agree to release the 'body' to Joseph of Arimathea (a known Jew and follower of Jesus) if he was not sympathetic to Jesus?
37. Crucifixion was a slow death. It usually lasted several days. Death followed from exhaustion, inability to respire properly as a result of being in an upright position or attacks by wild animals. Why did Jesus, who was a fit and healthy man used to walking the countryside for long distances, die so quickly in only a matter of a few hours?
38. If Jesus really was expected to die in such a short time, why did Pilate express surprise at Jesus's death? (Mark 15:42-44)
39. Why would the Jews bribe the soldiers to say that Jesus's disciples had stolen the corpse whilst they (the soldiers) were asleep? If the soldiers had truly related this story, they might have been asked how they knew that the disciples had stolen the corpse if they were asleep?
40. Why did the Jews not go and check the tomb themselves? They had put much effort into getting Jesus crucified. A friend of Jesus had been allowed to take the body away. Why did they not visit the tomb before Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus did?
41. Why did Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus not stay with Jesus in the tomb after taking down his body from the cross to witness the resurrection? Jesus had apparently told his followers that he would die and rise after three days. (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:17-19) This report had even reached the Jews (Matthew 27:63). Why did not Joseph and Nicodemus remain with Jesus to witness the event?
42. Did the Jews really believe that Jesus had died? If so, why did they ask the Romans for a guard to be placed outside the sepulcher? Matthew says the Jews explained this by saying that Jesus's disciples could spread false rumors about him rising from the dead. However, if the Jews really believed this to be the reason for the request, why could they not have asked the disciples to produce the risen Christ as proof? If the disciples had then done so, the Jews could then presumably rearrest Jesus.
43. Why were the Roman authorities so disinterested about the apparent removal of the body if this is what the Jews were claiming?
44. Why was the stone moved from the tomb (Matthew 28:2) if it was a supernatural rising?
45. When Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of Jesus saw him, he was wearing gardener's clothing (John 20:15). Where did Jesus get these clothes from? His own clothes had been taken by the soldiers who had divided them drawing lots (John 19:23). It was not through Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus because they are only reported of having taken in herbs, aloes and a linen shroud (John 19:39, 40). What was the significance of Jesus wearing gardener's clothing (as opposed to normal clothing)? Was it meant to be a disguise? If so, for what purpose?
46. Why were the women who visited the tomb terrified if Jesus was dead (Mark 16:8)? What did they have to be terrified of if the Jews had succeeded in killing Jesus?
47. If Jesus could conquer death and rise from the dead, why did he fear seeing the Jews after the crucifixion? particularly as death had no more power over him? (Romans 6:9)
48. Why did Jesus disguise himself after the resurrection and appear only to the disciples? Surely, this was the great manifestation of his power and the fulfillment of the purpose of his creation. What was the purpose in keeping it all a secret now?
49. If Jesus was the risen Christ, why did he meet his disciples behind closed doors and not in the open as he used to? (John 20:19)
50. How many times did Jesus ascend to Heaven? Luke (23:43) states that Jesus told one of those crucified with him that he would be in Heaven that day with him. Does that mean that Jesus went up to Heaven after his death, came back to earth and then ascended to Heaven once more? According to John there appears to be yet another Ascension. When Mary Magdalene asked to touch him, Jesus forbade her saying that he had not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17). Later Jesus appears to the disciples and actually invites Thomas to touch him, (John 20:27) which must mean that Jesus had ascended and returned. Thus, is it possible that there were three Ascensions?
51. If Jesus was God and Jesus was dead for three days, does that mean also that God (heaven forbid) was also dead for three days?
52. Why is it that there is not a single direct account of Jesus's life by any of the twelve disciples or anyone who knew him personally? Can the word of those who did not know him or have the opportunity to hear him personally vouch for the accuracy of some of the reported remarks?
53. How was it that the Gospel writers were able to report accurately Jesus's words, without committing them to memory or putting them on paper, some thirty to thirty-five years after his death before the first Gospel was written? Furthermore, given that:
(a) Those writing the Gospels did not hear the words directly from Jesus and it cannot, therefore, be said that the words left a lasting impression.
(b) They would have been passed on by word of mouth and therefore risked personal comment being added.
(c) There is no written record of Jesus's words in Aramaic (his spoken language) thus necessitating a translation at some stage. In the light of this, what weight can be placed on the reliability of some of the reported speeches? (Note this question does not relate to stories or parables since these can be more easily remembered.)
54. Why is it that Mark (the first written Gospel) is the shortest account when one would expect it to be the longest? Did the memories of later authors (e.g. John - written some 30-50 years later) became clearer with the passage of time?
55. If the Gospels are the word of God and the authors of the Gospels were divinely inspired, why are there so many contradictions in them? For example, why should God tell Mark that it was the third hour when Jesus was crucified (Mark 19:14) but tell John it was the sixth hour? (John 19:14). Why should God tell Matthew and Mark that the two who were crucified with Jesus reviled him (Matthew 27:44, Mark 15:32) but tell Luke that Jesus told one of them that he would be rewarded by being in Heaven with him that day? (Luke 23:39, 43) Why should God tell Matthew that the first ones to visit the sepulchre after the crucifixion were Mary Magdalene and the 'other' Mary (Matthew 28:1) but tell Luke it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James and the other women (Luke 24:10) and tell John that it was only Mary Magdalene? (John 20:1)
56. Why is it that there is so much confusion and disagreement between the Gospel writers over the account of the crucifixion and resurrection? Is it fair to say that nobody was entirely sure of what actually happened?
57. The author of Mark asserts that Jesus was taken up to Heaven and sat on the right of God (Mark 16:19). This remark could only come from Jesus himself or an eyewitness account. Since it was not Jesus who reported it, does that mean that the eyewitness actually went to Heaven and saw Jesus sitting at the right side of God? If so, was that person also taken to Heaven and brought back to report the incident?
58. The disciples are said to have witnessed the Ascension (Mark 16:19), Luke 24:50). This must have been the most incredible experience of their lives. Why is it that not one of them wrote a single word concerning it afterwards? Why is it that the only accounts related are by others who had no direct knowledge of the incident?
59. In the story of Jesus's birth, it is said that a star led the Three Wise Men to Jesus's birthplace. Is it not against the Laws of Nature for a star to travel in this way? Can the phenomenon be reconciled with our present day knowledge of astronomy?
60. If Jesus's central message was that of Trinity (a concept alien to the Old Testament), why did he not elaborate on the subject to explain the interrelationships clearly? Why did he leave it to Paul to explain?
61. Is it credible to say that if all the acts of Jesus in his life-time were transcribed on paper, the world could not hold the books which would be written? (John 21:25). Is it merely an exaggeration? If so, what other exaggerations exist?
62. If it is accepted, as it is by most scholars, that there have been additions, alternations and amendments to the original Gospels, what confidence can a reader have that a particular remark attributed to Jesus was not inserted later as an expression of the Christian faith at that time?
63. If Jesus was God, why did he repeatedly emphasize the importance of the unity of God? For example:
(a) Hear O Israel the first commandment is that Thy God is One and there is none other than He (Mark 12:28, 32, Matthew 22:34-40)
(b) I can do nothing on my authority, as I hear, I judge and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. (John 5:30, 31)
64. The Old Testament prophesied the coming of a 'Messiah'. This Messiah was never conceived as a divine figure. How did a prophetic figure become converted into a divine being?
65. If Jesus was claiming divinity, why did he place himself on an equal footing with everyone else? My Father and your Father, My God and your God. (John 20:27)
66. If Jesus was God, why did he forbid the reference of divinity to himself: Why call me good? Only God is good. (Matthew 19:16-17)
67. If Jesus was claiming divinity, why did he liken himself to the Judges and Prophets of the Old Testament who had also been called gods, but in a metaphorical sense? (John 10:34-36, Psalms 82:6). If Jesus was applying the term 'Son of God' in a literal sense, why would he give this reference from the Old Testament which was clearly referring to people as sons in a metaphorical sense?
68. Why should Jesus say he could do nothing of his own authority, if he was God? (John 5:30)
69. If Jesus was God, why did he not know who had touched him? (Mark 5:30)
70. If Jesus was God, why did he not know what was going to happen on the Day of Judgment? But of that day or that Hour no one knows, not even the Angels in Heaven, not the Son but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)
71. If Jesus was God, why would he say that he was sent by God? (John 6:29)
72. If Jesus was God, what need did he have to pray? (Mark 1:35, Luke 5:16)
73. If Jesus was God, why would he curse a fig tree when it had no fruit on it particularly as it was not the season for its bearing fruit? (Mark 11:12-14, Matthew 21:18-19)
74. When Zebedee asked that his two sons might sit on the right and left of Jesus, why did Jesus say that the power was not with him but only with God? (Matthew 20:23)
75. If Jesus was divine, why did he clearly refer to himself as a man (John 8:39-40) and separate himself from God in describing the relationship 'The only true God and Jesus Christ' (John 17:3)?
76. If Jesus was God and therefore omniscient, why did he allow himself to be tricked by Judas?
77. If Jesus was God, why did he die on the cross in a matter of a few hours when ordinary mortals usually lasted several days? If Jesus was weakened by bearing the sins of the whole world, why should he say that he was able to redeem the sins of the world?
78. Jesus is reported to have said: He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me (Matthew 10:40, Luke 10:16, John 12:44). Who sent Jesus if he himself was God?
79. According to Christian tradition, Jesus was in hell for three days after his death. How does one reconcile this with Jesus's remarks on the cross to one of those crucified with him that today you will be with me in Paradise. (Luke 23:43)
80. If Jesus believed in and advocated the concept of original sin (i.e. that all children are born sinful) why did he say that unless a man received the Kingdom of Heavens as a child he would not enter it? (Mark 10:4-15). Why should he go to bless them instead of purifying them by baptism if that is what is required before a child can be cleansed of original sin?
81. Forgiveness is a cornerstone of Christian belief (Matthew 5:38-40). Is forgiveness the appropriate action in all instances? If so, would it mean that there could be no penal system under the Christian Law for punishing offenders?
82. If Jesus's teaching was intended for the entire world as a complete code for all mankind, why should Jesus confine it to one section of people -- the Jews only? (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)
83. If Jesus's teaching ended in Palestine, why is it that there are so many remarkable similarities between the reported life histories of Jesus and Buddha? These similarities include:
o Virgin birth
o Temptation by the Devil
o Resistance of the temptations
o Teaching by parables
o Injunction to love one's enemies
o Early followers consisting of small groups of disciples
o Death accompanied by an earthquake
(Note: Buddha lived approximately five hundred years before Jesus.)
84. If Jesus meant that he was literally the son of God, why should he confuse the issue by frequently referring to himself as The Son of Man a term from the Old Testament which did not imply divinity since the Son of Man (as understood in the Old Testament) was never a divine being?
85. If the Trinity existed since the beginning of time, were the Jews misled by all the prophets before Jesus in being told to believe in the Unity of God? If the Jews were not spiritually advanced to understand the complex concept of the Trinity, does that apply to the prophets also?
86. Why was it necessary for Jesus to die physically so that man could attain salvation? What significance does physical death have with spiritual life?
87. According to the Doctrine of Atonement, the sins of the guilty are redeemed by the death of Jesus. Jesus was sinless. How can the sins of the guilty be borne by the death of an innocent man? Is it divine justice to punish an innocent person for the crimes committed by the guilty?
88. If Jesus believed in the Doctrine of Atonement, why would he tell his disciples that if they forgave others, God would forgive them (Matthew 6:14, 15)? If Atonement forgives all sins, what further need is there to seek the forgiveness of others?
89. If, as according to Paul, man can do nothing by himself to attain salvation (Romans 3:24, 3:28, 9:11, 9:16, Galations 2:16), what is the point of obeying the commandments? (Mark 10:17-19, Luke 10:25, Matthew 19:16-20)
90. If Atonement forgives all sins, why did Jesus say that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven? (Matthew 12:31) Is there a distinction between forgivable and unforgivable sins? If so, how does one distinguish between the two?
91. If it is Jesus's death which forgive sins, and not any personal effort on the part of the sinner (such as carrying out good works, restraining from evil habits, etc.), what motive is there for a person to avoid sin and evil conduct?
92. If Jesus redeemed the sins of the world by his crucifixion, that could only atone for the sins of the world up to that point. What about sins after the crucifixion? If it also covers later sins, how does one reconcile that with Paul's remark that Jesus's sacrifice is for earlier sins and he cannot be crucified a second time (Hebrews 10:26, 66)
93. If belief in the resurrection and atonement is essential, how was it that Jesus forgave the sins of an adulteress even though she did not believe in him nor in his redemption? (Matthew 8:1-11)
94. Jesus taught his disciples to pray during his lifetime. He taught them also to pray after his death (Matthew 6:9-15). What further need is there to pray if Atonement forgives all sins?
95. Paul was to feature as a major teacher and expounder of Jesus's message. Why is there no reference, directly or indirectly, by Jesus to his work? Jesus refers to true and false prophets coming after him as well as the Spirit of Truth but why no reference to Paul?
96. If Paul's teaching was based on Jesus's words, why is not one word based on Jesus's parables, similitudes or the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount?
97. Jesus was raised as a Jew. Accordingly, he was circumcised, fasted, abstained from the flesh of swine and prayed. It was also repeatedly said that he had not come to change the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17). By what authority, therefore, did Paul abolish all these practices? What indication did Jesus give that after his death these practices would no longer be necessary?
98. If salvation can only be attained by belief in Jesus's death and resurrection, why is there no reference to it whatsoever in the two greatest summaries of Jesus's teachings: The Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's Prayer?
99. All prophets live their lives as examples for others. If salvation is only through belief in the Doctrine of Atonement - and that matters more than anything else - why was it necessary for Jesus to demonstrate all the numerous acts of kindness, compassion, forgiveness, healing, mercy, love of his enemies, the condemnation of empty ritual, etc.? If all these actions were not the central message of Jesus, is it not true that the majority of his works which comprise the main parts of the Gospels are rendered utterly irrelevant?
100. If the return of the Prophet Elijah was to be fulfilled by another man (John the Baptist), why cannot the return of the Messiah (Jesus) similarly be fulfilled through another person? Is there any historical or religious record of the same prophet returning to this world?
101. Jesus prophesied that there would be true and false prophets in the future (Matthew 7:15-20). We know that there have been false prophets but, why, according to Christian tradition, have there not been any true prophets? Were they all false? If no true prophet was to appear, why did Jesus make this prophecy?
Note: All quotations are from the Revised Standard Version.

[glo]

Greetings, Ironbeard.

If you are interesting in furthering you knowledge about Christianity, you may find this thread helpful:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...hristians.html
Brother Woodrow kindly started it.

Peace

[Pygoscelis]

In my experience most islamic criticisms of Christianity can be turned around against Islam, and the same can be said about Christian criticisms of Islam.

The two religions are more alike than either often cares to admit.

[Jayda]

101 Questions about Christianity

Hola Ironbeard,

Gracias for your interest in our faith, I will (ojala) try to answer your questions to the best of my ability… but I do not think I can do them all at once so I will try to do one or two a day while my girls are sleeping. I think this thread will become very cluttered if we have discussions on all of my answers so if you have additional questions maybe we should create whole new topics? I am a Catholic which means sacred scripture and sacred tradition are both part of my beliefs and I will answer from both… it also means I have to requote all of your biblical quotes to the New American Bible translation because that is the only translation approved for liturgical use… RSV is not…

gracias

1. If Jesus's mission was to the lost sheep of Israel, why was it confined to Palestine where only two of the original tribes had settled? Did that mean that Jesus had failed in his mission?

“But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)

“Lost sheep of the house of Israel” does not mean physically misplaced, but House of Israel does mean the Hebrews, so I see why you are confused that this might mean the lost tribes.

Jesus uses the phrase “Lost Sheep” many times in His ministry, it is always a reference to those people who have strayed from Gods path and it refers back to His “Parable of the Lost Sheep” here is one recounting of the Parable, I wish you to see that He means “sinners” when he says Lost Sheep:

“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.”

"If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.”

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.”

“For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”

"What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying?

"If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray.“
"So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.”

Now that that is understood, let us look back at Matthew 15:24. It is part of the story of The Syrophoenician Woman, a Canaanite whose daughter was possessed, she asked Jesus for help and he responded with the above quote from Matthew 15:24. She responded by worshiping Him (bowing down and saying “Lord help me!”) He tested her again by telling her that what he was bringing she was not worthy of “it is not good to throw the childrens’ bread to the dogs” and she responded that even dogs eat at the feet of their masters… He showed her that the words He had said was a test of her faith “Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great” and he healed her daughter “it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.”

Matthew 15:24 fulfills a function in the narrative, as the first test of faith for the woman. It is a rebuke of her advances, he is reminding her that the Messiah was predicted to come to the Jews, not anybody else… so she should have nothing to say to Him this is just like His comment that the bread he is offering is too good for her which is the second test.

But she passes the test when she says she, of herself, is not worthy except through her faith “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table” so Jesus commends her for her faith in Him and her loyalty and he rewards her.

What we learn from this is that Jesus did indeed come to the Hebrews, just as the Messiah is meant to come to that nation. St. Augustine has a beautiful sermon about this specific aspect of the question, here is a link.

But he comes to them with a message for all mankind, and faith in Him just like the Canaanite woman brings us into His covenant.

So here is your question again:

1. If Jesus's mission was to the lost sheep of Israel, why was it confined to Palestine where only two of the original tribes had settled? Did that mean that Jesus had failed in his mission?

The answer to your question, from the Catholic standpoint, is that you have misunderstood what Jesus meant by “I have come for the Lost Sheep,” which was a reference to a parable about sinners. But you understood that "the House of Israel" means the Hebrews... together this would have meant "I have come only for those who have gone astray who are Hebrews" but you misunderstood what the purpose that His quote served in the narrative. It was actually a test of her (a non-Hebrew) faith in Him, and not a true rebuke. This is supported by His pleasure in her faith and His eventual decision to heal her daughter because her (a non-Hebrew) faith in Him was so great.

So the answer to the second part of your question is that he did not fail.

Dios te bendiga

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Jayda]

Hola again ironbeard,
Here is the question I am answering:

2. Why should Jesus specifically forbid, on the one hand, preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles (Matthew 7:6, 15:24, 26) and yet on the other, tell the disciples to teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? (Matthew 28:19)

Here are the passages you referenced:

Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

And

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

(this is called “The Great Commission”

Matthew 7:6 is not about the Great Commission, it is actually about giving the gospel to people that we know will deliberately mock and scorn it. If we give the gospel to people who we know for certain intend to “trample it under their feet” and then “tear us to pieces” we are assisting in deconsecrating something Holy.

We have as an example the words of the Holy Martyr St. Cyprian (of Carthage) addressing Demetrianus who was Proconsul of Africa;

1. I had frequently, Demetrianus, treated with contempt your railing and noisy clamour with sacrilegious mouth and impious words against the one and true God, thinking it more modest and better, silently to scorn the ignorance of a mistaken man, than by speaking to provoke the fury of a senseless one.

Neither did I do this without the authority of the divine teaching, since it is written, "Speak not in the ears of a fool, lest when he hear you he should despise the wisdom of your words; " Proverbs 23:9 and again, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like unto him." Proverbs 26:4
And we are, moreover, bidden to keep what is holy within our own knowledge, and not expose it to be trodden down by swine and dogs, since the Lord speaks, saying, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

For when you used often to come to me with the desire of contradicting rather than with the wish to learn, and preferred impudently to insist on your own views, which you shouted with noisy words, to patiently listening to mine, it seethed to me foolish to contend with you; since it would he an easier and slighter thing to restrain the angry waves of a turbulent sea with shouts, than to check your madness by arguments. Assuredly it would be both a vain and ineffectual labour to offer light to a blind man, discourse to a deaf one, or wisdom to a brute; since neither can a brute apprehend, nor can a blind man admit the light, nor can a deaf man hear.

Sacred Tradition upholds the correct interpretation of Matthew 7:6, that we may not bring scripture to those we know will treat it without dignity.

Matthew actually goes on to explain in 7:7-8 that anybody who wishes to know God will not be denied, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” Even gentiles will not be turned down by the Lord, as was the case of the Syrophoenician we talked about in the answer to your first question, please see my answer in that post if you have more questions.

Matthew 15: 24, 26 is not actually talking about “the Great Commission” (the preaching of the gospels). As we discussed in the answer to 1, those specific comments were part of a test of faith Jesus was giving to a Canaanite woman who asked Him to heal her daughter. Her faith in Christ was strong and He healed the woman’s daughter.

Matthew 28:19 is what is called “the Great Commission” in which the disciples, who were previously during the life of Jesus Ministry commanded to not preach outside the confines of the nation of Israel (because the Messiah was sent to Israel), were told by the resurrected Jesus that His mission was complete, that He was leaving the world to go back to His Father in Heaven and that they were now to go and baptize all nations.

Okay so here is your question again:

2. Why should Jesus specifically forbid, on the one hand, preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles (Matthew 7:6, 15:24, 26) and yet on the other, tell the disciples to teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? (Matthew 28:19)

You misunderstand Matthew 7:6 which is commanding us to keep Holy what is Holy by not giving the gospel to people who will deliberately mock, and degrade its Holiness… doing that makes us as blasphemous as them. Likewise you misunderstand Matthew 15:24, and 26 which are parts of a test of faith Jesus is giving to a non-Hebrew woman, she passes this test and is rewarded for her faith. You correctly understand Matthew 28:19 but I do not think you understand the background of it… (because your question accidentally stumbled on something partially true) that Jesus as Messiah came to the Jews just as predicted, but for the benefit of all men, He then sent out His disciples to all nations to act as His emissary.

So the answer to your question is that despite the first passages you discussed do not actually mean what you are referring to there was a time when preaching to the gentiles was not allowed, namely when the disciples first became disciples following Jesus. This was because Jesus was the Messiah who had been sent (physically) to the Jews, so that he could help them fulfill their destiny as a nation of Priests. Because at that time the disciples were following Jesus as he walked the Earth they could not compromise His messianic mission by preaching outside Israel.

After Jesus had accomplished His work, He handed His ministry to the disciples and He sent the disciples out into the world to baptize all people and speak to all people. As Augustine shows, the disciples themselves fulfilled part of Jesus messianic mission because they were the Jews going out into the gentiles… they were fulfilling their duty as a nation of priests.

Dios te bendiga

[- Qatada -]

In my experience most islamic criticisms of Christianity can be turned around against Islam, and the same can be said about Christian criticisms of Islam.

The two religions are more alike than either often cares to admit.

It's not actually, judaism and islam are more similar than christianity is according to my understanding.

The reasons where they may be similar is because the message sent to Moses was a similar message sent to Jesus, and the message of Jesus was also a similar message which was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon them all.) All prophets called to the worship of the Creator, the One God, without ascribing associates to God. Why would a messenger than claim that he is God himself, or that the people should worship him?



Peace.

[Jayda]

Well Jayda, I applaud you for your patience in answering these questions. I suppose I've become a little suspect after all the threads I've seen intended to show how "illogical" Christianity is.

gracias keltoi,

you might still be right, i do not know... i am just assuming the best. if i am wrong and these are just rhetorical questions mean to make scripture sound foolish then i am exactly what Matthew 7:6 warns us not to do... and i am committing blasphemy...

i hope ironbeard does not want to make me commit blasphemy :)

so i think maybe we are just finding out how naive i am...

gracias

[glo]

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis View Post
In my experience most islamic criticisms of Christianity can be turned around against Islam, and the same can be said about Christian criticisms of Islam.

The two religions are more alike than either often cares to admit.

It's not actually, judaism and islam are more similar than christianity is according to my understanding.

The reasons where they may be similar is because the message sent to Moses was a similar message sent to Jesus, and the message of Jesus was also a similar message which was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon them all.) All prophets called to the worship of the Creator, the One God, without ascribing associates to God. Why would a messenger than claim that he is God himself, or that the people should worship him?

Peace.

You may be right that Judaism an Islam are closer in some respects - namely how to approach God by obeying food restriction, cleanliness and other laws.

But Pygoscelis makes a good point:
For every refutation between the two faiths there is a counter-refutation.
For every argument a counter-argument.
For every 'proof' in one holy book a counter-proof from the other holy book.

Hey, after 9 months of being a member her I finally came across sites such as answer-christianity ... only to find that there are also sites such as answer-islam ... :rollseyes :rollseyes :rollseyes

It is all out there! The debates are as old as our faiths! The discussions have been had by scholars and theologians for over a thousand years!!!

That should tell us something - namely that there is no easy conclusion.
Whatever it is that makes each of us choose one faith over another, it is more and beyond what people can capture in logic, refutations and human rationale.
:?


peace

[Sami Zaatari]

salam all, if anyone reads the gospels one will notice that each gospel account has a different version of one story of jesus, for instance a story in mark is found in the later gospels of matthew and luke to be changed, by changed they become better. mark was the source, and both matthew and luke borrowed from mark and simply changed things around, there is no such thing as matthew and luke being 2 different eye witness accounts, thats not true they simply borrowed from mark and changed stories around:

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Evol...tion_of_Jesus_

[Jayda]

3. Why did Jesus prohibit the Gospel from being preached to the Gentiles during his ministry (Matthew 10:5, 7:6, 15:24-26) but after his 'resurrection' tell them to preach the Gospel to the whole world? (Mark 16:15)
If Jesus really had made the latter statement, why was there such a fierce debate within the early Church (and particularly between Peter and Paul) as to whether the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles? (Acts 15:6-30)

Hola again ironbeard,

These are the passages you mentioned

Matthew 10:5 “These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the (B)Samaritans;”

Matthew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

Matthew 15:24-26 “But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

Mark 16:15 “And He said to them, "(A)Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” (The Great Comission)

And Acts 15:6-30 (this is very long so here is a link to a proper Catholic translation)


I think it is fairly obvious at this point that because you asked all of these questions at once… (which I am not saying is a bad thing) some of your misinterpretations of scripture have already been answered… Matthew 7:6 we discussed in my answer to your second question (link), is not referring to the Great Commission, it is about giving the gospel to those we know will deliberately degrade it, and if we do this we are committing blasphemy (see Cyprian’s answer found on my post in that link). Matthew 15: 24-26 we also discussed in my first answer. This too is not relevant for the question you are asking since it is not about bringing the Word it was a test of faith to a woman who requested Jesus help.

So that leaves Matthew 10:5, Mark 16:15 “The Great Commission” which requires further explanation, and Acts 15: 6-30 “The Council of Jerusalem”

Thank you for bringing up Matthew 10:5, you are correctly interpreting this scripture that it is Jesus telling the disciples not to preach to people outside Israel. Also I would like to add unlike the last two questions the first part of this question is based on something you correctly understand… Jesus did tell the disciples not to preach to the gentiles during His ministry, but after His Resurrection He told them to go out and make disciples of all nations.

Matthew 10:5 has a context, it is the gathering of the disciples for Jesus Ministry you may read the entire Chapter 10 entitled “The Twelve Disciples, Instructions for Service” with this link (otherwise it is too long for me to post)

What I want you to see is that Jesus is telling them that they have a journey ahead of them and they will do and see amazing things, “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give.” That the journey will not be easy “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be (Y)shrewd as serpents and (Z)innocent as doves.” He tells them that the meaning of their discipleship is that they must sacrifice everything for him “And (BD)he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.” And he tells them their reward “And (BI)whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."”

The narrative continues from there with Matthew 11 “When Jesus had finished giving instructions to His twelve disciples, He departed from there (B)to teach and preach in their cities.” And onward into the story of Jesus and His disciples during His ministry.

So what I want you to see is that this is the beginning for Jesus and His disciples… now they are told exactly what Jesus, the Messiah, expects from them and what they can expect from this new life walking through Israel with Jesus. They are now servants of the Messiah, the Messiah who was sent to only one group, the lost sheep from the nation of Israel, the nation of Israel is meant to be a priestly nation, bringing God to all the gentiles.

This is exactly what Jesus did, he went to the Jews with a special message for them to bring to the World, and he chose Jews to fulfill their covenant with God by delivering His Word to all mankind… but only after His Messianic mission was complete. If he were to go and preach to all nations during the time of His life He would not be acting like the prophesied Messiah, who was supposed to come only to the Nation of Israel. So His message, Life and Teachings are for all people, but he came to the Jews first and he brought the message to the Jews in order for them to bring it to the rest of mankind… only after His messianic mission was complete did he order them to go and preach to all nations… He was physically leaving to go back to heaven, but the Jewish disciples he taught remained and he sent them out to bring His light to the rest of the world.

St. Augustine has a Sermon about this I will post the relevant sections.

Here arises a question out of these words; "If He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, how came we from among the Gentiles into Christ's fold? What is the meaning of the so deep economy of this mystery, that whereas the Lord knew the purpose of His coming—that He might have a Church in all nations, He said that 'He was not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel'?" We understand then by this that it behoved Him to manifest His Bodily presence, His Birth, the exhibition of His miracles, and the power of His Resurrection, among that people: that so it had been ordained, so set forth from the beginning, so predicted, and so fulfilled; that Christ Jesus was to come to the nation of the Jews, to be seen and slain, and to gain from among them those whom He foreknew. For that people was not wholly condemned, but sifted. There was among them a great quantity of chaff, but there was also the hidden worth of the grain; there was among them that which was to be burnt, there was among them also that wherewith the barn was to be filled. For whence came the Apostles? whence came Peter? whence the rest?

The answer to the question that St. Augustine leaves you with is “the Jewish people,” Peter and all the disciples came from the Jews… they were Jews. The sermon continues with discussing Paul, who was also called and was also a Jew and then St. Augustine says this:

For to the Gentiles He went not Himself, but sent His disciples. And in this was fulfilled what the Prophet said; "A people whom I have not known has served Me." See how deep, how clear, how express the prophecy is; "a people whom I have not known," that is, to whom I have not exhibited My Presence, "has served Me." How? It goes on to say, "By the hearing of the ear they have obeyed Me:" that is, they have believed, not by seeing, but by hearing. Therefore have the Gentiles the greater praise. For the others saw and slew Him; the Gentiles heard and believed. Now it was to call and gather together the Gentiles, that that might be fulfilled which we have just now chanted, "Gather us from among the Gentiles, that we may confess to Your Name, and glory in Your praise," that the Apostle Paul was sent. He, the least, made great, not by himself, but by Him whom he once persecuted, was sent to the Gentiles, from a robber become a shepherd, from a wolf a sheep. He, the least Apostle, was sent to the Gentiles, and laboured much among the Gentiles, and through him the Gentiles believed. His Epistles are the witnesses.

So here is the First part of your question again:

3. Why did Jesus prohibit the Gospel from being preached to the Gentiles during his ministry (Matthew 10:5, 7:6, 15:24-26) but after his 'resurrection' tell them to preach the Gospel to the whole world? (Mark 16:15)

The answer is that during His time on Earth Jesus was the Messiah promised to be sent to the Jewish people, when the disciples followed Him it was His ministry and He personally led it. It was not meant for Him to take His ministry beyond the confines of Israel since that is not what God had promised… He promised a Messiah to be sent to the Jews, to rekindle their purpose as Gods Priest nation to be sent out into the world and preach and be an example to all people.

When he completed His mission and gave His ministry to His Jewish servants the disciples He then gave them the command to go and take the message to all people… since His words and His works truly were for all people (that is why Jesus never turned down a Non-Jew that came to Him, it simply was not the time for Him to go to them) This was their Cross and this was the part that they had to take up and carry. The Messiah had come and gone and now the Ministry was in the hands of the disciples, as St. Augustine beautifully answers “For to the Gentiles He went not Himself, but sent His disciples”

Okay the second part of your question concerns the Council of Jerusalem… the issue there was not whether they should preach to gentiles it was where the gentile converts had to observe Jewish customs and things associated with that covenant (circumcision, diet, etc) the biggest issue was circumcision: “But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." (Acts 15:5)

The Apostles decided that the gentiles did not have to keep all of the traditions and commandments of the Jews, including circumcision.

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."”

(Acts 15:19-21)

So you see as for the second part of your question which is:

If Jesus really had made the latter statement, why was there such a fierce debate within the early Church (and particularly between Peter and Paul) as to whether the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles? (Acts 15:6-30)

You misunderstood the nature of the argument between Paul and Peter…the argument was whether gentile converts had to keep certain traditions that Jews did… the Council decided that they did not. This was not about preaching the gospel to gentiles.

gracias

[Yaqub Sulayman]

Brother Sami, I have an excellent link for you:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html

[Kittygyal]

Why else insult anothers religion and post all these questions that are not his questions but are from a hate site copied and pasted.

Obviously this was a Bash Christianity thread so he oviously does want to bash.

Or if I went on an anti-islam site and copied and pasted a bunch of stuff that discredits your religion, would you not call it a bashing thread?

Assalmualikum warhmathullahi warbarakathuhu
i don't wana argue but am sure brother IRONBEARD's intention was NOT like that! he is not like a person whom insults other religion's he has got respect brov!
Ma'assalama

[Yaqub Sulayman]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...811332,00.html

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

TRUE

Exodus iii, 14

God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”

Leviticus xxvi,12

“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

Exodus xx,1-17

The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7

The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29

Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i

The Virgin Birth

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection

Another blow to Christianity indeed!

[Yaqub Sulayman]

Biblical Errors in Genesis

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, supposedly written by Moses, who had direct communication with God. Makes sense, because some of the events in there are supposed to have happened when only God was around, so we might expect this book to be correct. NOPE!

Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Genesis 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Genesis 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
Leviticus 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

Genesis 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Yahweh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
Exodus 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Yahweh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

Genesis 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
Genesis 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

Genesis 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
Hebrews 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

Genesis 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2 Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

Genesis 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Abel is.
Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
Exodus 15:3, Isaiah 42:13, Hebrews 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
Exodus 20:5, 34:14, Deuteronomy 4:24, Exodus 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
Leviticus 26:7-8, Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 10:40, Judges 14:19, Ezekiel 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
Numbers 25:3-4, Deuteronomy 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, Psalms 7:11, 78:49, Jeremiah 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, Zephaniah 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2 Samuel 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
Ezekiel 6:12, Nahum 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "...who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
2 Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1 John 4:8, 16 God is love.
Galatians 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Genesis 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
Jeremiah 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.

Genesis 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
Genesis 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
Numbers 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, Numbers 14:20, 1 Samuel 15:35, 2 Samuel 24:16 God does change his mind.
Numbers 23:19-20, Isaiah 15:29, James 1:17 God does not change his mind.

Genesis 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
Genesis 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark.

Genesis 7:1 Noah was righteous.
Job 1:1,8, 2:3 Job was righteous.
Luke 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
James 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1 John 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
Romans 3:10, 3:23, 1 John 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

Genesis 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.
Genesis 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?).

Genesis 11:7-9 God sows discord.
Proverbs 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

Genesis 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1 Corinthians 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.

Genesis 11:12 Arpachshad [Arphaxad] was the father of Shelah.
Luke 3:35-36 Cainan was the father of Shelah. Arpachshad was the grandfather of Shelah.

GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
Genesis 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
Genesis 12:4, Acts 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.

Genesis 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, Exodus 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, Numbers 12:7-8, 14:14, Job 42:5, Amos 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.
EX 33:20, John 1:18, 1 John 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.

Genesis 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
Genesis 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.

Genesis 15:9, Exodus 20:24, 29:10-42, Leviticus 1:1-7, 38, Numbers 28:1-29, 40 God details sacrificial offerings.
Jeremiah 7:21-22 God says he did no such thing.

Genesis 16:15, 21:1-3, Galatians 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
Hebrews 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

Genesis 17:1, 35:11, 1 Chronicles 29:11-12, Luke 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God.
Judges 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.

Genesis 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
Galatians 6:15 It is of no consequence.

Genesis 17:8 God promises Abraham the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession."
Genesis 25:8, Acts 7:2-5, Hebrews 11:13 Abraham died with the promise unfulfilled.

Genesis 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings.
Leviticus 20:17, Deuteronomy 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.

Genesis 18:20-21 God decides to "go down" to see what is going on.
Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

Genesis 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring.
2 Peter 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous."

Genesis 22:1-12, Deuteronomy 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
Judges 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1 Corinthians 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
James 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.

Genesis 27:28 "May God give you ... an abundance of grain and new wine."
Deuteronomy 7:13 If they follow his commandments, God will bless the fruit of their wine.
Psalms 104:5 God gives us wine to gladden the heart.
Jeremiah 13:12 "... every bottle shall be filled with wine."
John 2:1-11 According to the author of John, Jesus' first miracle was turning water to wine.
Romans 14:21 It is good to refrain from drinking wine.

Genesis 35:10 God says Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer; henceforth his name is Israel.
Genesis 46:2 At a later time, God himself uses the name Jacob.

Genesis 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
Genesis 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz.
1 Chronicles 1:35-36 Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek.

Genesis 49:2-28 The fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and Benjamin.
Revelation 7:4-8 (Leaves out the tribe of Dan, but adds Manasseh.)

Genesis 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite.
Acts 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor.

[Sami Zaatari]

salam all, Jesus in the bible said he had a god, if this is not CLEAR PROOF THAT hes not god then what is!

http://muslim-responses.com/Jesus_ha...sus_has_a_God_

[ManchesterFolk]

This is such a joke. People who copy and paste are such losers. Think for yourself, and watch me refute your points. I can't take the bashing of others using lies:

Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

So... Are you saying God cannot make light without the sun? :rollseyes

Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

No, in Chapter 1:11-12:

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It does not say every tree was created, God in Ch. 2 creates more trees.

G2:4-9

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

The passage says:

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

It is saying that God out of the ground created them earlier and now is bringing them to Adam to be named.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

See above for the differences of Ch. 2 descriptions of events from before and then what happend.

Genesis 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#...27s_first_wife

Genesis 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
Leviticus 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

Encouragement, and the fact that it is a sin is unrelated.

Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

He was pleased with Adam and Eve and the first creations, there offsprings are the sinners and therefore are the ones who he is unpleased with.

Genesis 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Yahweh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
Exodus 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Yahweh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

The verses in question:


2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Your examples make no sense:

In Genesis 12:8 is says:

8 And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD.

Nowhere is he called Jehova. The name he calls upon is "God almighty" obviosuly.

Genesis 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
Genesis 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

No where does it say he will die the day he eats the fruit:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

You sho your lack of brain power because what it says is basically "when you eat this the day you do, you will surely die" as in YOU WILL DIE AT A POINT IN TIME.

Adam did die, because he ate from the tree. Many say Adam would not have died ever is he did not eat from it.

Genesis 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
Hebrews 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

Can it not be both wrong and immature?

It can be dangerous and stupid to jump off a cliff... Is that a contradiction?

Genesis 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2 Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

God likes his offering better. He likes both of them equally. As you said he likes the OFFERING. Not the person.

Genesis 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Abel is.
Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

The point of asking is not because he does not know, it is because he wants Cain to admit his wrong doing.

Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
Exodus 15:3, Isaiah 42:13, Hebrews 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
Exodus 20:5, 34:14, Deuteronomy 4:24, Exodus 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
Leviticus 26:7-8, Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 10:40, Judges 14:19, Ezekiel 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
Numbers 25:3-4, Deuteronomy 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, Psalms 7:11, 78:49, Jeremiah 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, Zephaniah 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2 Samuel 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
Ezekiel 6:12, Nahum 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "...who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
2 Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1 John 4:8, 16 God is love.
Galatians 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

God is everything in Christian belief so God can be all those things.

Genesis 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
Jeremiah 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.

What stupidity, very simple... Cain went away and Lords presence was gone, not because he could not be found or was well hidden but because God had no concern for him.

Genesis 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
Genesis 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
Numbers 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

The verse says:

33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

They were sons of Anak. Who were really big. Not Nephilim.

Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, Numbers 14:20, 1 Samuel 15:35, 2 Samuel 24:16 God does change his mind.
Numbers 23:19-20, Isaiah 15:29, James 1:17 God does not change his mind.

Genesis 6:6 says: 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exodus 32:14 says: 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:17-19 shows God did not contradict. Balak did!


17 And when he came to him, behold, he stood by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said unto him, What hath the LORD spoken?
18 And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor: 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Genesis 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
Genesis 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark.

The verses refer to two of each to be taken and then another verse says 7 of a certian kind are to be.

For example, I say bring 2 pairs of shoes, and then say bring 5 more pairs of the first pair you brought.

God asks him to save more of a certain kind after ordering him to get some more. No contradiction, just God saying brin more of that. Thanks.

I often ask for a refill. :)

Genesis 7:1 Noah was righteous.
Job 1:1,8, 2:3 Job was righteous.
Luke 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
James 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1 John 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
Romans 3:10, 3:23, 1 John 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

Romans 3:10 says: 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

That means as he is writing there is not one righteous. That does not mean there was never righteous.

Genesis 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.
Genesis 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?).

The two quotes refer to before and after a huge amount of rain has come. sigh...

Genesis 11:7-9 God sows discord.
Proverbs 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

So God can hate people who do something and still do it. God in Christian tradition is all powerful.

In Islam Allah hates other pretend God or "idols" yet Allah is a God. Therefore, he hates other humans things that emulate Allah.

Very simple. He can do it, but you can't.

Genesis 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1 Corinthians 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.

He is not the author the people brought it upon themselves and wrote there own fates by there actions.

Should I go on or not? Most of the New Testament says it is a New covanent of God so according to Christians the Old Testament laws do not matter, so they aren't contradictions but changes according to Christians.

Therefore, I will stop since I don;t have the time or energy to continue refuting your claims.

Please respond if you wish to mine, but since all you are usefull for is copy and pasting, i'm not sure you ahve the capacity to respond.

[Yaqub Sulayman]

Excellent article.

[duskiness]

Bible is not a scientific book about an evolution. Or chemistry. Or law. Or medicine. Or driving cars. It is a book about God and us. There is nothing shocking or new (at least for most Christians) in this statement.

[ManchesterFolk]

Nope, that what Christian missionaries do.

If you believe my article is a lie, I welcome you to refute it.

I have already refuted half of your "bible errors" post. Go check.

I don;t have the time to refute the other half, nor the caring to since you did nothing more than copy and paste and there is no point in convincing an ignoramus.

[Munda Pakistani]

In another thread, someone (a Christian) said that Muslims don't fully appreciate God's mercy and forgiveness. That got me thinking.

Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere below; I'm no scholar. :)

In Christianity, all your sins are forgiven if you say you believe in the Christian concept of Isa (Jesus). Looking at this from one angle, it 's quite attractive, the idea of such a Forgiving God (assuming you choose to ignore the question as to why such a forgiving God would need to sacrifice an innocent son - na'aaoozobillah - to forgive mankind's sins) . Indeed, this concept brings many to Christianity, and is one of the main reasons many devout Christians are devout (I probably shouldn't say that - how would a devout Muslim know? - but what the heck :D ).

But looking at it from another angle, isn't God, along with being extremely Merciful, Absolutely Fair and Just? I'm pretty sure that's what Christianity preaches.

How is it fair that someone who's raped and murdered all his life, can say and believe in a couple of sentences, and end up in the same heaven as the nun who's abstained from many of the world's pleasures throughout her life? Does the nun not deserve to be rewarded for her devoutness? Although it seems all warm and nice and forgiving if you look at it from the murderer's point of view, but it's very unfair if you look at it from the nun's point of view.

The Qur'an clearly speaks about levels of heaven (in Surah Waqiah (number 55), for instance). The more good deeds you perform in this world, the higher the heaven you gain entry to. This to me seems to be the just way.

Does the Bible speak about, directly or indirectly, levels of heaven? If not, how do you solve the above conundrum?







Extending that, if someone rapes my daughter, and escapes punishment in this world, is it fair that he should get away scot-free in the Hereafter as well and end up in the same Heaven as me just by saying and believing in a few sentences? Again, looking at it from the rapists point of view, it's all warm and fuzzy, but from my point of view, it's extremely unjust.

Islam, like Christianity, teaches that Allah is Extremely Merciful and Forgiving. Yet, Islam also teaches that inspite of this, if I wrong someone, I will not be forgiven until and unless that person forgives me. Again, to me, this seems to me to be the just way.

Isn't is unfair that people are given blanket forgiveness for the wrongs they've done to other people?




Sorry for the long post. Maybe there are obvious answers to these that I'm overlooking. :)

[Munda Pakistani]

The only answer I have for you is to be more tolerant. I could provide the answers you seek but why? The point of posting this is not to seek answers but to bash anothers faith.

1) Thanks for the advice.

2) You're a psychiatrist?

[ManchesterFolk]

Nobody claimed the Bible is a book of science. The problems arises when there are discrepancies between science/history/archeology and Biblical accounts, an very good example being Noah's ark.

Read my post again:

This is such a joke. People who copy and paste are such losers. Think for yourself, and watch me refute your points. I can't take the bashing of others using lies:

Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

So... Are you saying God cannot make light without the sun? :rollseyes

Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

No, in Chapter 1:11-12:

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It does not say every tree was created, God in Ch. 2 creates more trees.

G2:4-9

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

The passage says:

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

It is saying that God out of the ground created them earlier and now is bringing them to Adam to be named.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

See above for the differences of Ch. 2 descriptions of events from before and then what happend.

Genesis 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#...27s_first_wife

Genesis 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
Leviticus 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

Encouragement, and the fact that it is a sin is unrelated.

Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

He was pleased with Adam and Eve and the first creations, there offsprings are the sinners and therefore are the ones who he is unpleased with.

Genesis 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Yahweh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
Exodus 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Yahweh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

The verses in question:


2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Your examples make no sense:

In Genesis 12:8 is says:

8 And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD.

Nowhere is he called Jehova. The name he calls upon is "God almighty" obviosuly.

Genesis 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
Genesis 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

No where does it say he will die the day he eats the fruit:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

You sho your lack of brain power because what it says is basically "when you eat this the day you do, you will surely die" as in YOU WILL DIE AT A POINT IN TIME.

Adam did die, because he ate from the tree. Many say Adam would not have died ever is he did not eat from it.

Genesis 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
Hebrews 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

Can it not be both wrong and immature?

It can be dangerous and stupid to jump off a cliff... Is that a contradiction?

Genesis 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2 Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

God likes his offering better. He likes both of them equally. As you said he likes the OFFERING. Not the person.

Genesis 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Abel is.
Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

The point of asking is not because he does not know, it is because he wants Cain to admit his wrong doing.

Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
Exodus 15:3, Isaiah 42:13, Hebrews 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
Exodus 20:5, 34:14, Deuteronomy 4:24, Exodus 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
Leviticus 26:7-8, Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 10:40, Judges 14:19, Ezekiel 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
Numbers 25:3-4, Deuteronomy 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, Psalms 7:11, 78:49, Jeremiah 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, Zephaniah 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2 Samuel 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
Ezekiel 6:12, Nahum 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "...who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
2 Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1 John 4:8, 16 God is love.
Galatians 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

God is everything in Christian belief so God can be all those things.

Genesis 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
Jeremiah 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.

What stupidity, very simple... Cain went away and Lords presence was gone, not because he could not be found or was well hidden but because God had no concern for him.

Genesis 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
Genesis 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
Numbers 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

The verse says:

33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

They were sons of Anak. Who were really big. Not Nephilim.

Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, Numbers 14:20, 1 Samuel 15:35, 2 Samuel 24:16 God does change his mind.
Numbers 23:19-20, Isaiah 15:29, James 1:17 God does not change his mind.

Genesis 6:6 says: 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exodus 32:14 says: 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:17-19 shows God did not contradict. Balak did!


17 And when he came to him, behold, he stood by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said unto him, What hath the LORD spoken?
18 And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor: 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Genesis 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
Genesis 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark.

The verses refer to two of each to be taken and then another verse says 7 of a certian kind are to be.

For example, I say bring 2 pairs of shoes, and then say bring 5 more pairs of the first pair you brought.

God asks him to save more of a certain kind after ordering him to get some more. No contradiction, just God saying brin more of that. Thanks.

I often ask for a refill. :)

Genesis 7:1 Noah was righteous.
Job 1:1,8, 2:3 Job was righteous.
Luke 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
James 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1 John 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
Romans 3:10, 3:23, 1 John 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

Romans 3:10 says: 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

That means as he is writing there is not one righteous. That does not mean there was never righteous.

Genesis 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.
Genesis 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?).

The two quotes refer to before and after a huge amount of rain has come. sigh...

Genesis 11:7-9 God sows discord.
Proverbs 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

So God can hate people who do something and still do it. God in Christian tradition is all powerful.

In Islam Allah hates other pretend God or "idols" yet Allah is a God. Therefore, he hates other humans things that emulate Allah.

Very simple. He can do it, but you can't.

Genesis 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1 Corinthians 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.

He is not the author the people brought it upon themselves and wrote there own fates by there actions.

Should I go on or not? Most of the New Testament says it is a New covanent of God so according to Christians the Old Testament laws do not matter, so they aren't contradictions but changes according to Christians.

Therefore, I will stop since I don;t have the time or energy to continue refuting your claims.

Please respond if you wish to mine, but since all you are usefull for is copy and pasting, i'm not sure you ahve the capacity to respond.

[Munda Pakistani]

You don't need one. Reading your post showed that your one goal was to discredit anothe religion, a belief system other care about. That is a pretty sad thing, I would never want to hurt another by attacking what they love.


I'm no Bible thumper, just somone who realizes peace will not occur when there is no understanding and just attacking.



if it wasn;t a copy and paste job then I offer you my apologies "Munda Pakistani"

1) Have thought about acting on your own advice?

2)Wow, never realised I wrote that well. :D Did you even read the post?
Anyway, no worries mate.

[ManchesterFolk]

Those who say I copy and pasted, READ THE POST.

To tell you the truth, it looked like a "find anti-christian site and rephrase the bashing article in my own words" job, but maybe I am wrong.

Sh** Manchester, stop flooding the thread with insults. If you have patience use it, cuz there will always be copy and pasters.

He posted it after I already refuted him, so I wanted to show him that I answered him if he did not know or care to read.

[SilentObserver]

I think the merging of threads has caused some confusion. For the record, my post about copy and pasting was directed at the copy and paste job by Iron beard, not Munda Pakistani.

[Jayda]

hola Woodrow,

gracias for consolidating these thread i think it was a wise decision... if it is not too much trouble could i request that this thread be cleaned up a little bit though? i and a few others are trying to answers these questions and it will take a very long time because there are so many and they were asked all at once... this bickering about who is asking what and for what reason, or side conversations about how difficult it is to answer all 101 questions, or various other comments related to how it is not being done fast enough (and even this post) are only adding to the clutter which means some of our posts, answering these questions, are being lost or never seen...

i do not have very much time in the day to answer some of these very important questions... so i do try to put a lot of concentration in them and it is depressing that they are being lost amid the pointless scuffles...

gracias
Dios te bendiga

[glo]

In another thread, someone (a Christian) said that Muslims don't fully appreciate God's mercy and forgiveness. That got me thinking.

Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere below; I'm no scholar. :)

Greetings, Munda Pakistani

I am having a relaxed day today, and I am not really in the mood for some serious Bible search.

I will offer just a few thoughts, and hope that others may contribute more scholarly advice ... :)

But looking at it from another angle, isn't God, along with being extremely Merciful, Absolutely Fair and Just? I'm pretty sure that's what Christianity preaches.

How is it fair that someone who's raped and murdered all his life, can say and believe in a couple of sentences, and end up in the same heaven as the nun who's abstained from many of the world's pleasures throughout her life? Does the nun not deserve to be rewarded for her devoutness? Although it seems all warm and nice and forgiving if you look at it from the murderer's point of view, but it's very unfair if you look at it from the nun's point of view.
[...]
Extending that, if someone rapes my daughter, and escapes punishment in this world, is it fair that he should get away scot-free in the Hereafter as well and end up in the same Heaven as me just by saying and believing in a few sentences? Again, looking at it from the rapists point of view, it's all warm and fuzzy, but from my point of view, it's extremely unjust.

Of course we believe that God is just - but that does not mean 'just' and 'fair' in the eyes of men.

God allows many things to happen (famine, war and disasters for one thing), which, from a human perspective a may consider 'unfair'! Why was I born into a rich developed nation, receiving daily provisions and more, good housing, schooling etc ... when others are born to live short impoverished lives, only to die of hunger???
As believers we cannot think like that. If God is just, then he is just ... even if we fail to understand it with our human minds.

With regards to people receiving God's grace despite having led a sinful life, does Islam not teach similarly? As soon as you dedicate you life to Allah, your past sins are wiped out?

Jesus said this (Sorry, it' a bit long, but I don't think I can shorten it without losing some of the meaning ...):

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

"So the last will be first, and the first will be last." (Matthew 20:1-16)

Whoever dedicates his life to the Lord, received the full reward - regardless at what stage of his life this occurs.
Is this so different in Islam?

The Qur'an clearly speaks about levels of heaven (in Surah Waqiah (number 55), for instance). The more good deeds you perform in this world, the higher the heaven you gain entry to. This to me seems to be the just way.

Does the Bible speak about, directly or indirectly, levels of heaven? If not, how do you solve the above conundrum?

To my knowledge there are no different levels of heaven ...

But good deeds do matter very much in Christianity!
Look here:

"It isn’t enough just to have faith. Faith that doesn’t show itself by good deeds is not faith at all—it is dead and useless. Now someone may argue, 'Some people have faith; others have good deeds.' I say, 'I can’t see your faith if you don’t have good deeds, but I will show you my faith through my good deeds'” (James 2:17-18).

You may find this thread interesting:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ht=deeds+faith

Islam, like Christianity, teaches that Allah is Extremely Merciful and Forgiving. Yet, Islam also teaches that inspite of this, if I wrong someone, I will not be forgiven until and unless that person forgives me. Again, to me, this seems to me to be the just way.

That highlighted sentence is interesting!
Does Islam teach that? I haven't heard that before ... thank you for sharing it here. :)

Christians are meant to forgive others their sins, but God's forgiveness does not depend on people forgiving a sin first ... instead God only forgives us when we are prepared to forgive others.
Jesus said this:

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. (Luke 6:36)

Sorry for the long post. :)

No worries, brother ... my post is longer than yours! :D

Peace

[ManchesterFolk]

You wish for me to give you the answer then very well, you wrote:

How is it fair that someone who's raped and murdered all his life, can say and believe in a couple of sentences, and end up in the same heaven as the nun who's abstained from many of the world's pleasures throughout her life?

I would like to point you towards your own beliefs if I may:

Hadith Qudsi 34:
On the authority of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (sal Allaahu alayhi waSalam) say: Allah the Almighty said:

O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great at it.

Pretty easy, ask and get forgived, what about the devout believers?

Your religion is the same...

[Woodrow]

Good idea. I will begin work on it. A number of the questions are essentialy duplicates, so I will start with those.

If I erroneously delete an important post please let me know and I will restore it.

[Jayda]

Good idea. I will begin work on it. A number of the questions are essentialy duplicates, so I will start with those.

If I erroneously delete an important post please let me know and I will restore it.

gracias Woodrow,

please just do not delete any of the 100 questions (many are redundant) or any of my direct answers to them (even where i point out it is redundant) i would like ironbeard to have the opportunity to explain if he meant something else by his question than how i understood he meant it... i am going to index links to all 100 of my answers when i am done so i need all 100 posts intact...

i have been online too much today i should go now, goodnight everybody!

mucho gracias

[glo]

I am quite sure that Munda Pakistani's original post was not a copy-and-paste job.
His quote

In another thread, someone (a Christian) said that Muslims don't fully appreciate God's mercy and forgiveness. That got me thinking.

seems to refer to my quote in the 'Why not Islam' thread:

But with all the beauty and wisdom I see in Islam, I believe that it misses the true nature of God. It does neither recognise nor understand the expression of God's love for us in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's a terrible loss to all who follow Islam, because God's grace and love for us is so much greater than Muslims realise!

It could be a coincidence, of course, but it looks genuine to me ...

Peace, guys ... this thread seems to be escalating! :rollseyes

[ManchesterFolk]

I am quite sure that Munda Pakistani's original post was not a copy-and-paste job.
His quote
seems to refer to my quote in the 'Why not Islam' thread:

It could be a coincidence, of course, but it looks genuine to me ...

Peace, guys ... this thread seems to be escalating! :rollseyes

Yeah I realised which is why I finally answered and apologized through PM.

[duskiness]

i have been online too much today i should go now, goodnight everybody!

buenos noches Jayda!
Maybe rest of us could help you on your "quest". Like write answer to some and pm them to you? Then you could decide whether to use them or not? just thinking aloud...

[Jayda]

4. Out of all the signs that Jesus could have given about himself, he chose to give the sign of Jonah: This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah. (Luke 11:29, Matthew 12:39, Matthew 16) Jonah was swallowed alive by a whale and remained in its belly alive for three days. For Jesus to have properly fulfilled the prophecy, he would need to enter the tomb alive and come out alive. Why should Jesus give this, of all signs, if he was to die and be resurrected?

hola ironbeard,

these are the passages you identified:

"As the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11:29)

"But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;" (Matthew 12:39)


And here is a link to Matthew 16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6;&version=49;


The answer to your question comes to us from Matthew 12: 40

"for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Jesus actually explains what he means by "the sign of Jonah," he is not directly saying that what happened to Jonah will happen to Him, (otherwise he would have been eaten by a whale), His sign is that He will be buried in the heart of the Earth for three days and three nights... which He was.


okay so here is your question again:

4. Out of all the signs that Jesus could have given about himself, he chose to give the sign of Jonah: This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah. (Luke 11:29, Matthew 12:39, Matthew 16) Jonah was swallowed alive by a whale and remained in its belly alive for three days. For Jesus to have properly fulfilled the prophecy, he would need to enter the tomb alive and come out alive. Why should Jesus give this, of all signs, if he was to die and be resurrected?

Jesus did not mean that what literally happened to Jonah would literally happen to Him, he was saying that just like JOnah was in a whale for 3 days, He would be buried in the Heart of the Earth for three days... that is the only likeness to Jonah's situation that he promises.

gracias

[Jayda]

5. If Jesus's message was for the whole of mankind, why did he forbid his disciples to preach to the Gentiles? (Matthew 10:5-6)

hola ironbeard,

please see my answer to question number 3... you are asking the same question, so it is the same answer.

gracias

[Jayda]

6. When Jesus was asked what the only way was to true salvation, he replied: keep the Commandments (Matthew 19:17). The first of the Commandments was to believe in the Oneness of God (Exodus 20:3). Why did Jesus answer so if he believed in and was part of the Trinity? Why did he not refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

hola ironbeard,

the two passages that you quoted are

"And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is g(Q)ood; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.""(Matthew 19:17)

and

"You shall have no other gods before Me." (Exodus 20: 3)

your question mixes two different subjects and confuses what the rich man is asking...

the two subjects are the christological nature of God, and our relationship with God.

"Theologia" (the nature of God) is a subject that addresses questions like "what does God look like" "how is Jesus' divinity manifested?" "how is Jesus both Man and God?" essentially these questions are aimed at telling us about what God is as a physical/spiritual being. There is no one place in the Bible that addresses theologia, but instead it is spread out in the Bible (and usually connected to some other oikonomic context) and must be organized to give us any coherent picture about God, the over arching picture is that we will never fully understand God as a spiritual or physical being, He is too complicated and we will only know the things He wants us to know, and that is very little... this is why most of our doctrines that organize coherently the revelations we have concerning Gods essence are called "Mysteries" like "the Mystery of the Trinity."

"Oikonomia" (our relationship with God) is the second subject... this is what the purpose of the Bible is, it covers things like Gods intervention in the course of human development, Gods plan for us, Gods covenants with mankind, Gods laws mankind must obey, and other things related to the interaction between man and God. this is something fully revealed to us... because it is the purpose of revelation. Sacred scriptures are inherently Oikonomic.

returning to your question the man was asking Jesus an oikonomic question. "And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain (B)eternal life?"" (Matthew 19: 16). The Ten Commandments are also an Oikonomic event, God explains His reasons for telling them the commandments in Exodus 19:

You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to Myself.

Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;

and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."

Here God saysnthat He is giving them these Commandments to be a part of His covenant... the purpose of the commandments is not to know about His nature (theologia), but to know what is expected of them (oikonomia).

it is the same oikonomic scenario for both the man in the NT and the Israelites in the OT... and so it is the same oikonomic answer. "Do this," a theologic explanation on the nature of God was neither required nor appropriate for either case... although when God speaks about Himself obviously He means Himself in all His theological attributes, which includes things known, such as His Triune Oneness, All powerfulness, Omniscience et cetera... and things unknown/unrevealed.

so here is your question

6. When Jesus was asked what the only way was to true salvation, he replied: keep the Commandments (Matthew 19:17). The first of the Commandments was to believe in the Oneness of God (Exodus 20:3). Why did Jesus answer so if he believed in and was part of the Trinity? Why did he not refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

and the answer is that you are confusing two separate topics... it was an oikonomic question a theologic answer was not appropriate... it is simply assumed in Gods oikonomic answer (in both Exodus and NT) He is talking about The God, with all His theologic attributes.

gracias

[Jayda]

buenos noches Jayda!
Maybe rest of us could help you on your "quest". Like write answer to some and pm them to you? Then you could decide whether to use them or not? just thinking aloud...

Mucho gracias!

please if you wish to answer feel free to, no need to send it to me, i am not any kind of authority!

honestly i do not know very much about other denominations... i am just answering as completely as i can for what I know about Catholicism (i am Catholic)... i am only using four resources, the New American Standard Bible, which is our only English translation approved for liturgical use by the Vatican, the Catholic Catechism which explains almost all matters doctrinal and dogmatic, the Catholic Encyclopedia which has wonderful encyclopedic knowledge that is considered imprimatur, and some personal resources... my family is very good friends with our Cardinal so sometimes i ask him but most of the time i just call a monastary :)

most of these questions are very easy some are a little redundant and many are based on misunderstandings or errors in interpretation (from a Catholic standpoint)... they are not difficult... i think ironbeard can learn a lot if we answer these for him...

i think right now i am on 7? but feel free to answer any you choose! i would like to index them with one post in the end so he can see our answers easier and ask any more questions he may have...

Dios te bendiga!

[Keltoi]

7...and how many to go? You must realize that ironbeard isn't actually interested in your answers. Perhaps I'm being negative, but I would hate to see someone spend so much time and effort to answer these questions when it will only lead to the same thread a week or two from now. I'm giving you reps for the effort however.

[Jayda]

7...and how many to go? You must realize that ironbeard isn't actually interested in your answers. Perhaps I'm being negative, but I would hate to see someone spend so much time and effort to answer these questions when it will only lead to the same thread a week or two from now. I'm giving you reps for the effort however.

Gracias...

94 if you include question 7. i think if ironbeard and the muslims that said they are good questions were interested in the questions than they must be interested in our answers too...

[dougmusr]

Extending that, if someone rapes my daughter, and escapes punishment in this world, is it fair that he should get away scot-free in the Hereafter as well and end up in the same Heaven as me just by saying and believing in a few sentences? Again, looking at it from the rapists point of view, it's all warm and fuzzy, but from my point of view, it's extremely unjust.

Islam, like Christianity, teaches that Allah is Extremely Merciful and Forgiving. Yet, Islam also teaches that inspite of this, if I wrong someone, I will not be forgiven until and unless that person forgives me. Again, to me, this seems to me to be the just way.

Isn't is unfair that people are given blanket forgiveness for the wrongs they've done to other people?

How does one become a Muslim? What happens to a persons past sins when one "reverts"?

[Yaqub Sulayman]

How does one become a Muslim? What happens to a persons past sins when one "reverts"?

1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.

2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

[dougmusr]

Islam, like Christianity, teaches that Allah is Extremely Merciful and Forgiving. Yet, Islam also teaches that inspite of this, if I wrong someone, I will not be forgiven until and unless that person forgives me. Again, to me, this seems to me to be the just way.

I would interpret this to mean that a murderer would not choose Islam because there can be no forgiveness for murder since the victim is rarely able to offer forgiveness after the crime.

[dougmusr]

1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.

2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

Munda Pakistani, does this unconditional forgiveness on reversion to Islam offend you?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

why should it offend? it gives the person a chance to start new.

[Pygoscelis]

Merciful and forgiving? No. I think not.

This is the same God that sends you to hell with no chance of parole simply for not believing in him (or so the mythology claims). That isn't merciful. And it isn't forgiving, given the lack of being able to leave Hell once yer sent there.

[Muslim Knight]

Merciful and forgiving? No. I think not.

This is the same God that sends you to hell with no chance of parole simply for not believing in him (or so the mythology claims). That isn't merciful. And it isn't forgiving, given the lack of being able to leave Hell once yer sent there.

It is merciful to put up with one's arrogance saying that God does not exist, it is even forgiving to put up with it, giving him the chance to repent from the moment of birth to the moment of death. It is lifetime of giving chance to that person, giving him everything in life that he can enjoy, it is not merely ample time, it becomes undeserving.

If God isn't merciful or forgiving, He can strike down his ungrateful creature in a moment's twist. Yet God is forced to contend with that person's arrogance as long as he breathes. It is fitting that person's misery be compounded upon death and in the Hereafter.

Even then, in the Hadiths we learn that, a sinful Muslim who has in his heart, faith in God, even if that faith is the size of an atom, will be sent to Hell to purify his sins, afterwards by the grace of God, he will be granted salvation and Paradise. That, is the sign of the Merciful and Forgiving God.

[Trumble]

Yet God is forced to contend with that person's arrogance as long as he breathes. It is fitting that person's misery be compounded upon death and in the Hereafter.

WHY?! 'Forced to contend'?! Why would a perfect, benign being have a problem with the 'arrogance' of a human being? Why would it trouble Him in the slightest?

Why should misery be compounded? How can a perfect, benign being create misery, let alone compound it? Why didn't He create so that there is no misery at all, or arrogance come to that. He could have done.

What is He supposed to be 'forgiving' of? Being upset because people don't believe in Him? Is that His ego? Pride? A perfect being should have neither. It just makes no sense at all.

[Malaikah]

It is not about having an ego issue Trumble. It is about being Just. The reality of the situation is that God created us and this is what He intends to do- punish the disbelievers and reward the believers. It is not up to us to question that, once we realize it is the truth, we accept it and work towards achieving paradise and saving ourselves from the fire.

Merciful and forgiving? No. I think not.

This is the same God that sends you to hell with no chance of parole simply for not believing in him (or so the mythology claims). That isn't merciful. And it isn't forgiving, given the lack of being able to leave Hell once yer sent there.

Some people act like the being thrown in the fire 'just because' they don't believe in God is some how not just. Tell me, what do you know about justice. It was God who created the concept of justice and he knows best what is just and what is not!

There is more to disbelieving than just rejecting God- you also reject his messenger, you make life harder for the people who believe in Him, you live life indulging in what has been forbidden and following your desires rather than God's law, you cause corruption in the land by doing things that God prohibited because they are in fact harmful to humans and society, you are ungrateful to the one who created you, gave you your senses and food, clothes and shelter.

God is Merciful and Forgiving. It makes one wonder that there is such a crime being commit daily by millions of people, so extreme that not even the Merciful and Forgiving- God- will forgive it.

A warner has been sent to you- Muhammad pbuh. God gave you intellect to be able to tell for yourself that he is a plain warner of what comes after death.

On the day of Judgment, you will be given a fair trial and God will decide what to do with you. He shall deal with all with justice on that day.

I warn you against your arrogant attack on God. Be humble and sincere perhaps you will be guided to the truth.

[Jayda]

It is not about having an ego issue Trumble. It is about being Just. The reality of the situation is that God created us and this is what He intends to do- punish the disbelievers and reward the believers. It is not up to us to question that, once we realize it is the truth, we accept it and work towards achieving paradise and saving ourselves from the fire.

hola Malaikah,

this is something similar to a debate somebody posted on CF between an arab woman and a muslim man, she said "islam divided the world into muslim and nonbeliever" i do not think she meant it in a flattering way...

what do you think of this statement, is it accurate based on what the purpose of life is according to islam (as you posted)?

it is something i have thought about...

gracias

*mods please remove this if it causes any offense*

[Muslim Knight]

WHY?! 'Forced to contend'?! Why would a perfect, benign being have a problem with the 'arrogance' of a human being? Why would it trouble Him in the slightest?

God created a person and gives him free will to choose whether to believe God exists or not, and laid out signs for him to look for God. Yet he flouts rules, ignores those signs, do bad harmful things unto others. It would not trouble Him the slightest (I have not said it would harm Him the slightest) but unto others, whom He created out of His Mercy. No, He isn't harmed the slightest. If He so willed, He can smite that person down in an instant. Like I said before, it is out of His Mercy that He extends that person time on this world that he may repent before his last breath.

Why should misery be compounded? How can a perfect, benign being create misery, let alone compound it? Why didn't He create so that there is no misery at all, or arrogance come to that. He could have done.

With God, perfect and benign cannot be used in the same sentence in the context of Islam. He can do whatever He wants. And that includes not having to follow what you or I might think He should do. After all, He is God and not some person. What He does or intends to do, He tells us in the Quran.

What is He supposed to be 'forgiving' of? Being upset because people don't believe in Him? Is that His ego? Pride? A perfect being should have neither. It just makes no sense at all.

How could a perfect being should not have ego or pride? In the Islamic context, He is after all, the Creator and Cherisher of the World. If every atom in your body, every molecule of air you breathe in, every grain of rice you eat, all of them He created, God is entitled to that ego and pride. The world and everything in it are His. If you can so much create but one fly out of nothingness, you are too. But on the contrary, He stresses out to us , 113 times at the beginning of each Surah in the Quran, of His qualities being Infinitely Good and Merciful.

[Pygoscelis]

I think many muslims here (christians too regarding their faith) are under the impression that non believers "reject" their God. This isn't really true. Non believers do not believe in your God. It isn't like we know he exists and decide to disobey him or rail against him. To us that would make as much sense as railing against something else fictional, like Odin, Ra, or Santa Claus.

The distinction is important and I don't think the theistic mind often appreciates it.

Your saying that the nonbeliever had a lifetime to change his mind and come to Allah simply does not compute to a non believer. It is like saying you have a lifetime to change your mind and come to Zozar, the God I just made up, who happens to exist and will punish you if you defy him.

Some people act like the being thrown in the fire 'just because' they don't believe in God is some how not just. Tell me, what do you know about justice. It was God who created the concept of justice and he knows best what is just and what is not!

God didn't create the concept of justice. Man did. Then man created God. Yes, I realize I can not prove my claim, but neither can you.

God is Merciful and Forgiving.

I disagree. The concept of God you speak of is neither. Nor is he kind or benevolent. He is tyranical and domineering.

On the day of Judgment, you will be given a fair trial and God will decide what to do with you. He shall deal with all with justice on that day.

So you say. But what if its Zozar? Then we're both in trouble. Or what if its the Christian redition of God? Or the Mormon? Or what if the Jehovas Witnesses are right?

And what if God is more upset at you worshiping a false God than worshiping no God at all?

[qoute]
I warn you against your arrogant attack on God. Be humble and sincere perhaps you will be guided to the truth.[/QUOTE]

You need to understand that one can not attack a fictional being. Somebody who doesn't believe in a given God can not attack that God, they can only attack the concept of that God being presented to them. You may find Lex Luthor to be the embodyment of everything bad about humanity, but you can not arrogantly attack him, because he doesn't exist. From the nonbelievers point of view this is no different.

And when the concept of God presented shows injustice or immorality, which to them exists independent of this particlar concept of God, they will notice it.

[glo]

why should it offend? it gives the person a chance to start new.

Greeting, Tayyaba.

I believe dougmusr is referring to this question by Munda Pakistani:

Extending that, if someone rapes my daughter, and escapes punishment in this world, is it fair that he should get away scot-free in the Hereafter as well and end up in the same Heaven as me just by saying and believing in a few sentences? Again, looking at it from the rapists point of view, it's all warm and fuzzy, but from my point of view, it's extremely unjust.

Christianity teaches that when you commit your life to God (i.e. become a Christian), all past sins and wrongs are wiped out. Munda Pakistani seems to find that concept 'unfair' ...

The point dougmusr is making ( and I agree with him), is that Islam teaches the same:
When you say shadaha and become a Muslim, all past sins (no matter how grave, even rape and murder) are forgiven and the slate is wiped clean.
Are we correct in thinking so?

If we are, then Christianity and Islam teach the same in this matter, and if Munda Pakistani finds the Christian teaching unfair, then the same applies to the Islamic teaching ...

I hope this makes sense.

[Pygoscelis]

With God, perfect and benign cannot be used in the same sentence in the context of Islam. He can do whatever He wants. And that includes not having to follow what you or I might think He should do. After all, He is God and not some person.

This is what troubles me most about the three monotheistic religions. The notion that whatever God does is Just and Right BECAUSE he is God. Please correct me if that is not the notion being presented here.

I have seen it elsewhere.

It is frightening.

It shows a complete lack of morality independent from the religious belief. I have a very hard time believing that even the most hard core religionists could have no morals independent of their God beliefs. Surely even they have some independent values. Don't they?

I do get nervous about this when I see them killing people and doing horrible things in the name of their God. Maybe they don't... that is a very scary thought. For if true, then all that has to happen is for them to be convinced that God wants them to do a horrible act, and they'll do it.

[Muslim Knight]

This is what troubles me most about the three monotheistic religions. The notion that whatever God does is Just and Right BECAUSE he is God. Please correct me if that is not the notion being presented here.

I have seen it elsewhere.

It is frightening.

It shows a complete lack of morality independent from the religious belief. I have a very hard time believing that even the most hard core religionists could have no morals independent of their God beliefs. Surely even they have some independent values. Don't they?

I do get nervous about this when I see them killing people and doing horrible things in the name of their God. Maybe they don't... that is a very scary thought. For if true, then all that has to happen is for them to be convinced that God wants them to do a horrible act, and they'll do it.

I was responding to Trumble's notion that God as a Perfect being is Benign. I am not implying that He is free to do whatever He wants that He will want to be tyrannical or domineering. A very powerful human may be inclined to do so but not God. It is quite the opposite. I am saying that He is not Benign as opposed to being active in managing the universe. The Islamic context is that God is actively managing the universe that without Him, the world would simply fall apart and eventually cease to exist. To say God is Perfect Being who is Benign is the concept of Agnosticism, wherein Agnostics believe God exists but does not participate in the affairs of His creatures, including the world. In Islam, we believe that God is actively managing the world in the sense that He continuously arranges things to make the universe work, He creates routes for the food to go into our way that we may eventually eat it.

God is Merciful and Forgiving imply that that out of His Mercy He created us all. If His Wrath exceeds His Mercy there would be continuous state of destruction and chaos. His desire to destroy will overcome His desire to create. There will be chaos and destruction everywhere up to a point where everything will cease to exist. In contrast, He says in the Quran and in the Hadiths that His Mercy overwhelms His Wrath, thus enabling the world to exist because of His Mercy. His Wrath He only directed to those who are against Him and deny His existence and Will. Evenso, out of His Mercy He extends the period for those to repent and return to Him.

[Malaikah]

this is something similar to a debate somebody posted on CF between an arab woman and a muslim man, she said "islam divided the world into muslim and nonbeliever" i do not think she meant it in a flattering way...

what do you think of this statement, is it accurate based on what the purpose of life is according to islam (as you posted)?

Hi Jayda.

No offense at all. :) It would be rather strange is Islam did not differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim.

Islam isn't like other religions. Islam is more than a religion, it is a political system too. A system that governs a country according to the laws of Islam. If there was no differentiation between a Muslim and a non-Muslim then non-Muslim would be expected to follow Islamic law in the exactly the same way as Muslims and so they would have no religious freedom! However non-Muslim do have religious freedom and to have this freedom there has to be a recognition of the fact that come citizen are Muslim and some are not.

Honestly, what do people expect. Muslims live this life not for the sake of this life but for the sake of the next life- to please God, enter paradise and save themselves from the hell fire. And we would love to save as many people as we can with us. The division in Islam has nothing to do with nationality or something superficial like that, but the division is based on religion, something that actually matters.

Islam creates a special bond between the Muslims. Perhaps the arab women was referring to this when she said Islam differentiates? Muslims have their own moral code and way of life the non-Muslims have their own. We don't expect you to take up our code and live by it, so this means there will be a difference when it comes to the way we deal with each other.

I can't answer the question directly because the statement is way to general.

Lastly, if she meant about how only Muslims can go to paradise and the non-Muslims will go to hell, well the concept is exactly the same in your own religion Jayda so I don't think I need to explain anything here.

Hope that helps. :)

[dougmusr]

Islam isn't like other religions. Islam is more than a religion, it is a political system too. A system that governs a country according to the laws of Islam. If there was no differentiation between a Muslim and a non-Muslim then non-Muslim would be expected to follow Islamic law in the exactly the same way as Muslims and so they would have no religious freedom! However non-Muslim do have religious freedom and to have this freedom there has to be a recognition of the fact that come citizen are Muslim and some are not.

Honestly, what do people expect. Muslims live this life not for the sake of this life but for the sake of the next life- to please God, enter paradise and save themselves from the hell fire. And we would love to save as many people as we can with us. The division in Islam has nothing to do with nationality or something superficial like that, but the division is based on religion, something that actually matters.

As a Christian, I feel that God only accepts those into paradise that make a personal commitment to Him according to Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved". I do not feel that anyone can be saved by establishing a political structure of laws and punishments which deter ungodly behavior. I also maintain that there is no religious freedom in any country which punishes Christians for sharing their faith in the public square.

[Malaikah]

I do not feel that anyone can be saved by establishing a political structure of laws and punishments which deter ungodly behavior.

Who said in Islam we are only saved by having politics, laws and punishments? (If you honestly believe that then you understand nothing about Islam, there is much, much more to it than that.)

The whole point of having a law is for stability of the society! How can a society be run with a law?! IMPOSSIBLE! It would be corruptions beyond belief! :uuh:

Most, if not all, countries on earth have a legal system, and a way to punish criminals. The only difference between Islamic law and the law of other countries is that Islamic law is based on divine revelation, and other laws are not, they are man-made laws.

Why do people find it so strange that we have law in Islam?:? God gave us this guidance on how to a run a society and we should be grateful for that. Even of other religions do not have a legal system, the members of that faith still have to rely on a legal system (i.e. that of the country they live in) to make it through life!

The only difference is that our legal system is divine.

[dougmusr]

Who said in Islam we are only saved by having politics, laws and punishments? (If you honestly believe that then you understand nothing about Islam)

Admittedly my knowledge of Islam is lacking, and what I do know comes from discussions on this forum and in reading a translation of the Quran.

Muslims live this life not for the sake of this life but for the sake of the next life- to please God, enter paradise and save themselves from the hell fire.

In Christianity, people are saved from Hell by God through Christ. Your statement indicates that Islam believes you achieve paradise by "saving yourself".

And we would love to save as many people as we can with us.

Exactly how do you save another person from Hell? It would be my interpretation of your prior statements that an Islamic political system in fact assists people in achieving paradise by discouraging behavior that displeases God. I have seen posts on this forum that if a person's sin is punished on earth, God does not punish the sin in Heaven, sort of like double jeapordy in a court of law. So I would also have to take that to mean that an Islamic system of justice is meant to assist entry to Paradise.

[Malaikah]

Yes what you have said is correct. :) But why do you find that strange?:?

Is it different in Christianity? Do ALL Christians go straight to heaven even if they sinned in this life and did not repent and never were punished for it in this life? (If that is the case, where is the justice?)

One correction- sins are never punished in paradise, but only in this life, the grave, on the day of judgement or in hell. Paradise is nothing but good.

[dougmusr]

One correction- sins are never punished in paradise, but only in this life, the grave, on the day of judgement or in hell. Paradise is nothing but good.

Of course there won't be any sin in Heaven, I meant prior to entry.

Is it different in Christianity? Do ALL Christians go straight to heaven even if they sinned in this life and did not repent and never were punished for it in this life?

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is a bit more complex. As a Christian, I believe that God is Holy and man is sinful. It would be impossible for a sinful man to understand fully the Holiness of God, and therefore, in spite of our best efforts, we will always fall short of His requirements because we are incapable of comprehending them, and we can not repent of something we do not perceive. I believe one can sin and not be aware of it until some time in the future. So I would say that all people die with a sin debt which has not been paid. I believe the Bible teaches that one's sins are forgiven prior to death if they are to be forgiven at all. The concept of being cleansed of sin following death is foreign to the Bible.

[Umar001]

It is for me personally both hillarious and annoying that Muslims, out of all people, Muslims would post such things. If I had it my way I'd close this down.

But since it's hear I guess I might aswell share my view in the hope that I might learn something.

No where does it say he will die the day he eats the fruit:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

You sho your lack of brain power because what it says is basically "when you eat this the day you do, you will surely die" as in YOU WILL DIE AT A POINT IN TIME.

Adam did die, because he ate from the tree. Many say Adam would not have died ever is he did not eat from it.

It is amazing, the passage is clear, and even your rendering is clear upto 'you will surely die' I don't know where you got 'YOU WILL DIE AT A POINT IN TIME' the passage is clear, 'for the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die' The link is there, the day you eat of this fruit you will die. Simple, I think maybe you could look at some more spirit lead answers as some claim, I remember a member of this forum saying that it was that day that Adam died spiritually, the member actually quoted this verse to prove to Muslims that God said Adam will die that die yet Adam did not die physically so it must have meant spiritually.

Genesis 6:6 says: 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exodus 32:14 says: 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:17-19 shows God did not contradict. Balak did!


17 And when he came to him, behold, he stood by his burnt offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said unto him, What hath the LORD spoken?
18 And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor: 19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Some emphasis above is mine.

So God can hate people who do something and still do it. God in Christian tradition is all powerful.

In Islam Allah hates other pretend God or "idols" yet Allah is a God. Therefore, he hates other humans things that emulate Allah.

Very simple. He can do it, but you can't.

Just so you know, the thing you brought forward is abit wrong, God hates people who worship anything besides him, why? Because there is nothing that has a right to be worshipped. Also, the verses showed God doing something and God hating those who do it, then you brought something about God hating people who pretend to be God, are you saying that the True God is pretending to be God? because the whole point of the verses was to show God hates people who do something yet does it himself.

Should I go on or not? Most of the New Testament says it is a New covanent of God so according to Christians the Old Testament laws do not matter, so they aren't contradictions but changes according to Christians.

If they don't matter then what laws do you go by if any??

Eesa,

Hi Jayda

hola ironbeard,

these are the passages you identified:

"As the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah." (Luke 11:29)

"But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;" (Matthew 12:39)


And here is a link to Matthew 16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6;&version=49;


The answer to your question comes to us from Matthew 12: 40

"for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Jesus actually explains what he means by "the sign of Jonah," he is not directly saying that what happened to Jonah will happen to Him, (otherwise he would have been eaten by a whale), His sign is that He will be buried in the heart of the Earth for three days and three nights... which He was.


okay so here is your question again:


Jesus did not mean that what literally happened to Jonah would literally happen to Him, he was saying that just like JOnah was in a whale for 3 days, He would be buried in the Heart of the Earth for three days... that is the only likeness to Jonah's situation that he promises.

gracias

Well that's just your interpretation, I thought I'd clear that up, actually the text seems clear, as you have quoted, '"for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."'

You chose to put in caps the three days and three nights, which in of itself is a problem, but the first three words are not in caps, why is that? They explicitly tell the listener, FOR JUST AS, just as Jonah was three days and three nights, so here we are told the same way that Jonah was three days and three nights.... and what way was Jonah in there?? This is something which can be debated I guess for either way, I guess us without the 'holy spirit' are left stuck.

With regards to the following question

6. When Jesus was asked what the only way was to true salvation, he replied: keep the Commandments (Matthew 19:17). The first of the Commandments was to believe in the Oneness of God (Exodus 20:3). Why did Jesus answer so if he believed in and was part of the Trinity? Why did he not refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

The answer given was here,

hola ironbeard,

From my understanding what you basically have mentioned is that the question was of a nature which did not need the answer of WHO God is but what the duties are as such, so that to attain eternal life one should follow the Commandment to know what is expected, and you showed a verse from the Old Testament.

My objection comes here, first that as many Christians have said the reason the Trinity is not spoken of much in the old testament is because God reveals himself at appropiate times and only when Jesus came was the time right for the Trinity to be CLEARLY spoken of, a child is given milk until it is old enough for meat. The whole God did not need to tell people he was three in one because he was not talking about his nature, well actually God wanted to make clear who he was, 'I am the LORD your God' is spoken many times, the Lord is a Jelouse God, His nature was something which would not have been hidden, not by a Jelouse God who wanted people to Know Who He Was.

Further more, according to the author of John, Jesus says, "3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." So knowing about God, loving him with all thy soul and thy mind is essential, there is no reason for God to not reveal his nature, and tell people who he is, specially through Jesus, at a time when Jesus, who some think himself is God, had the perfect oportunity to explain it.

It is not about a question about different subjects, for even knowing what is required of us entails understanding who is requiring us to do it, eternal life lies in knowing God.

Also, thank you for your time and patience.

Eesa

[Malaikah]

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is a bit more complex. As a Christian, I believe that God is Holy and man is sinful. It would be impossible for a sinful man to understand fully the Holiness of God, and therefore, in spite of our best efforts, we will always fall short of His requirements because we are incapable of comprehending them, and we can not repent of something we do not perceive. I believe one can sin and not be aware of it until some time in the future. So I would say that all people die with a sin debt which has not been paid. I believe the Bible teaches that one's sins are forgiven prior to death if they are to be forgiven at all. The concept of being cleansed of sin following death is foreign to the Bible.

That is so unjust and open to abuse! :X

[Pygoscelis]

wherein Agnostics believe God exists but does not participate in the affairs of His creatures

Isn't that Deism?

I've always thought Agnosticism means one who believes it is impossible to know if there is a God or not.

[Trumble]

Isn't that Deism?

I've always thought Agnosticism means one who believes it is impossible to know if there is a God or not.

Yup, deism in particular although Muslim Knight's precise description would also apply to pantheism and indeed other forms of theism that don't involve belief in a 'personal' God.

You describe what philosophers call 'strong' agnosticism. The 'weak' form (and the more common in general use?) simply involves not knowing if there is a God or not, without the necessary implication that it isn't actually possible to know.

[dougmusr]

That is so unjust and open to abuse! :X

It is my experience that many people postpone a conversion (or reversion if you prefer) decision for some time in order to participate in youthful excesses.

According to a previous post:
1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.
2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

If a healthy person becomes aware of the need to revert and delays the decision until an unexpected illness or accident makes their demise seem imminent, and then proclaims the Shahadah per step 1 above, does step 2 also occur? If so, would you say that the Shadadah is unjust and open to abuse?

[Jayda]

Eesa,

Hi Jayda



Well that's just your interpretation, I thought I'd clear that up, actually the text seems clear, as you have quoted, '"for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."'

You chose to put in caps the three days and three nights, which in of itself is a problem, but the first three words are not in caps, why is that? They explicitly tell the listener, FOR JUST AS, just as Jonah was three days and three nights, so here we are told the same way that Jonah was three days and three nights.... and what way was Jonah in there?? This is something which can be debated I guess for either way, I guess us without the 'holy spirit' are left stuck.

hola Eesa (may i call you that?)

i think perhaps i did not explain several things that are confusing you..., first, i am giving Catholic answers that i am drawing from official Church positions on, none of this is my interpretation. i use three sources, the catechism which is an explanation of all our doctrines and dogmas, the Catholic encyclopedia which is a repository for encyclopedic religious answers (it has imprimatur), and the New American Bible which is the only official english translation which is acceptable by the Church for liturgical use... the only official "bible" we believe in is the Nova Vulgata, that is in latin.

the NAB translates certain things into capital letters, i do not know why but i think it has something to do with how it is meant to be read aloud (since it is for liturgical use)...

my explanation of Jonah is not my interpretation... i looked up Jonah in the Catholic encyclopedia which gave an explanation of his OT story and the NT reference to him. the encyclopedia said that the sign was only that Jesus would be in the earth for three days just like Jonah was in a whale for 3 days... it is obviously an allusion to Jonah, not meant to be taken as a literal complete recreation of the Jonah episode (otherwise it would have been a whale and not the heart of the earth, among other things).

to confirm that the passage originally quoted was accurate i went to the biblegateway that has an online NAB that is fully searchable... i requoted the passage to include that translation since i believe in no other official english translations... that translation has that specific part in all capital letters...

With regards to the following question



The answer given was here,

From my understanding what you basically have mentioned is that the question was of a nature which did not need the answer of WHO God is but what the duties are as such, so that to attain eternal life one should follow the Commandment to know what is expected, and you showed a verse from the Old Testament.

My objection comes here, first that as many Christians have said the reason the Trinity is not spoken of much in the old testament is because God reveals himself at appropiate times and only when Jesus came was the time right for the Trinity to be CLEARLY spoken of, a child is given milk until it is old enough for meat. The whole God did not need to tell people he was three in one because he was not talking about his nature, well actually God wanted to make clear who he was, 'I am the LORD your God' is spoken many times, the Lord is a Jelouse God, His nature was something which would not have been hidden, not by a Jelouse God who wanted people to Know Who He Was.

actually Catholics do believe God discussed His triune nature in the past... a classic example is the Hebrews 1:8 reiteration of the psalms that delineates "the Son" and "the Father" and has the Son saluting the Father as God, and the Father saluting the Son as God. other examples include God speaking of His crucifixion in psalms, referring to how the world will see his pierced body and believe.

Further more, according to the author of John, Jesus says, "3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." So knowing about God, loving him with all thy soul and thy mind is essential, there is no reason for God to not reveal his nature, and tell people who he is, specially through Jesus, at a time when Jesus, who some think himself is God, had the perfect oportunity to explain it.

we believe Jesus called "the Father" God just like "the Father" called "the Son" God (Hebrews 1:8 for example). God witnesses himself as God many times in the bible... we also believe that Jesus was "sent" by the Father to us for our salvation, just as the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son. Jesus was attesting to the divinity of God, and to the purpose of his messianic mission.

It is not about a question about different subjects, for even knowing what is required of us entails understanding who is requiring us to do it, eternal life lies in knowing God.

Also, thank you for your time and patience.

Eesa

perhaps you can explain how you have come to this conclusion based on the original passage we were discussing... we have gone somewhat offtopic discussing the Trinity doctrine and delving into Christs Dyophysitic human nature and his threefold office...

the man clearly asks Jesus an oikonomic question, Jesus responded with an oikonomic answer.

Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

hola Al Habeshi,

i think there is too much information that needs to be answered on this thread for us to do so without a lot of confusion... perhaps it would be better for you to create separate threads to discuss the answers i give, that way i can concentrate on trying to answer ironbeards questions... i am sorry to request this but i am a newly wed and new mother and i do not have a substantial amount of time... so more organization for me means i can answer more efficiently when i do have free time...

i have to go,

Dios te bendiga

[Umar001]

hola Eesa (may i call you that?)

Of course, feel free to call me anything, Eesa, Abdullah, Al Habeshi, Abu Ikhlas, ect, just not Al lol.

i think perhaps i did not explain several things that are confusing you..., first, i am giving Catholic answers that i am drawing from official Church positions on, none of this is my interpretation. i use three sources, the catechism which is an explanation of all our doctrines and dogmas, the Catholic encyclopedia which is a repository for encyclopedic religious answers (it has imprimatur), and the New American Bible which is the only official english translation which is acceptable by the Church for liturgical use... the only official "bible" we believe in is the Nova Vulgata, that is in latin.

the NAB translates certain things into capital letters, i do not know why but i think it has something to do with how it is meant to be read aloud (since it is for liturgical use)...

my explanation of Jonah is not my interpretation... i looked up Jonah in the Catholic encyclopedia which gave an explanation of his OT story and the NT reference to him. the encyclopedia said that the sign was only that Jesus would be in the earth for three days just like Jonah was in a whale for 3 days... it is obviously an allusion to Jonah, not meant to be taken as a literal complete recreation of the Jonah episode (otherwise it would have been a whale and not the heart of the earth, among other things).

to confirm that the passage originally quoted was accurate i went to the biblegateway that has an online NAB that is fully searchable... i requoted the passage to include that translation since i believe in no other official english translations... that translation has that specific part in all capital letters...

Well what it boils down to, and what I was trying to say was that in reality any interpretation given is not going to be totally authorative, maybe for catholics their priests and father's interpretation is authorative but only one thing/person, holds authority in teaching and that is the Holy Spirit.

actually Catholics do believe God discussed His triune nature in the past... a classic example is the Hebrews 1:8 reiteration of the psalms that delineates "the Son" and "the Father" and has the Son saluting the Father as God, and the Father saluting the Son as God. other examples include God speaking of His crucifixion in psalms, referring to how the world will see his pierced body and believe.

Well Hebrews is written after the time of Jesus, that's not past considering that, as for other verses such as those in psalms then those are open to much interpretation and translation, as jews would tell you.

perhaps you can explain how you have come to this conclusion based on the original passage we were discussing... we have gone somewhat offtopic discussing the Trinity doctrine and delving into Christs Dyophysitic human nature and his threefold office...

the man clearly asks Jesus an oikonomic question, Jesus responded with an oikonomic answer.

Dios te bendiga

An extract from a previous post of yours reads:

There is no one place in the Bible that addresses theologia, but instead it is spread out in the Bible (and usually connected to some other oikonomic context) and must be organized to give us any coherent picture about God,

Just as for example, when God gave Commandments in the Old Testament, He also informed us of his nature, he incooperated both sides, the part which deals with his nature and the part that deals with his reletionship with us.

This again, when Jesus is asked about eternal life, then we know that eternal life is to know God, which entails knowing his nature.

As you have said this thread is going to go off topic, I'll leave it here, might have to talk about God's nature in another place.

Thank you for your time :)

Eesa

[Woodrow]

It is my experience that many people postpone a conversion (or reversion if you prefer) decision for some time in order to participate in youthful excesses.

According to a previous post:
1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.
2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

If a healthy person becomes aware of the need to revert and delays the decision until an unexpected illness or accident makes their demise seem imminent, and then proclaims the Shahadah per step 1 above, does step 2 also occur? If so, would you say that the Shadadah is unjust and open to abuse?

1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.
With the intent of reverting. If a person does not say the Shahadaah the minute they have the intent too, they really do not have the intent. Having the intent means to say the Shahadah then and there, even it it is just by yourself. There is no formal ceremony, No ritual. Although many people will say the Shahadah to themselves and then publicaly proclaim it at the Masjid. The public proclimation is not required although desired. we do not become members of a Masjid.

Quite simply, if a person sees the need to revert. They are going to say the Shahadah then and there. The fact they have recognised the need to say it and they have not, would be inconceivable. Sorry no deliberate last minute loopholes.. The concious effort of verbalising it is simply putting the finishing touches on it.




2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

True up to the time the person says the shahadah. However, there is no way a person can have the intent to be Muslim and put it off until they know they are facing death. That would mean the person had no intent to live as a Muslim.

[Malaikah]

It is my experience that many people postpone a conversion (or reversion if you prefer) decision for some time in order to participate in youthful excesses.

According to a previous post:
1.) One becomes Muslim by proclaiming the Shahadah.
2.) If one converts to Islam, his/her past sins are forgiven.

If a healthy person becomes aware of the need to revert and delays the decision until an unexpected illness or accident makes their demise seem imminent, and then proclaims the Shahadah per step 1 above, does step 2 also occur? If so, would you say that the Shadadah is unjust and open to abuse?

Terrible plan, they have no guarantee that they will live long enough to say the shahadah when they want to. They might die an unexpected death. I honestly can not give you a direct answer to this though it is not as simple as you have made it sound. Woodrow might be on to something though.

Either way, in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all, they will go to paradise anyway, whereas in Islam they will still be punished for the sins they committed as Muslims if they are not forgiven.

[dougmusr]

Either way, in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all, they will go to paradise anyway, whereas in Islam they will still be punished for the sins they committed as Muslims if they are not forgiven.

The implication seems to be that Christian conversion is seldom genuine, while Muslim reversion is seldom suspect.

[Malaikah]

No, but the point I am making is even the most evil of Christians will not be punished! Whereas the most evil of Muslims will be punished (if they are not forgiven).

[Keltoi]

No, but the point I am making is even the most evil of Christians will not be punished! Whereas the most evil of Muslims will be punished (if they are not forgiven).

What makes you believe the "most evil of Christians" will not be punished? That is very much not true.

[Jayda]

Of course, feel free to call me anything, Eesa, Abdullah, Al Habeshi, Abu Ikhlas, ect, just not Al lol.

lol gracias, your name is almost as long as my maiden name... i shall call you Eesa

Well what it boils down to, and what I was trying to say was that in reality any interpretation given is not going to be totally authorative, maybe for catholics their priests and father's interpretation is authorative but only one thing/person, holds authority in teaching and that is the Holy Spirit.

i think you might not be familiar with the Catholic+Orthodox position on this... we believe that the Holy Spirit is "with us" by guiding the leaders of the Church through something called apostolic succession... that means that any bishop that is recognized as tracing its office back to an apostle "historic episcopate" ... this is because the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church and God is with the disciples until the end of time... Catholics also believe that St. Peter (the first Pope) was given the keys to heaven and anything that he says on Earth is held true in heaven.

so we believe that the Holy Spirit is exactly why the Church holds the absolute authority over scriptural interpretation... that is why i went to such great lengths to determine what the Church says on these topics... rather than my own opinion.

Well Hebrews is written after the time of Jesus, that's not past considering that, as for other verses such as those in psalms then those are open to much interpretation and translation, as jews would tell you.

i think maybe you misunderstood why i was talking about Hebrews 1:8... i was saying that the reason the apostles requoted it was to show how the Son was referred to as God in the OT and in the psalms, and how we now understand this now that we have seen Christ... it is identifying Jesus as the person in the psalm called "the Son" who is saluted by "the Father" as "God."

i do not believe any of the bible is open to "much interpretation and translation" that is a sin because of Obsequium religiosum (religious assent) among other things... the only official english translation is the NASB and the only official interpretation is the Churchs... as it is guided by the Holy Spirit...

An extract from a previous post of yours reads:

There is no one place in the Bible that addresses theologia, but instead it is spread out in the Bible (and usually connected to some other oikonomic context) and must be organized to give us any coherent picture about God,

Just as for example, when God gave Commandments in the Old Testament, He also informed us of his nature, he incooperated both sides, the part which deals with his nature and the part that deals with his reletionship with us.

This again, when Jesus is asked about eternal life, then we know that eternal life is to know God, which entails knowing his nature.

excuse me if this is not an answer to your question i am still confused about what you are saying...

the theologia which is revealed to us in the first commandment is only that God is unique (no others) and unified... that knowledge is essential to following the first commandment because you are not allowed to believe that God is part of a pantheon, or that the Father, Son or Holy Spirit are three separate Gods. if you did not know that you could not follow the commandment the way it is meant to be followed... so that is why it is revealed. that is generally how theologia is revealed, for an oikonomic purpose... it is not revealed so that we could just know Gods nature for the sake of knowing Gods nature.

but the man who was asking Jesus what he had to do (oikonomic) to inherit the kingdom, did not need any further clarification on Gods nature as it applied to the first commandment... God had already revealed that he is a singular and unified God so a reiteration of this was unnecessary and inapprioriate, since the man would have understood following that commandment meant accepting God as singular and unified... so no further theologia was required, all that was needed was an oikonomic answer...

a discussion on exactly how God goes about being a singular unified God (triunity) was not essential to this man following the commandments (clearly he already had faith in Christ since he was asking Him how to go to heaven), so a further delving into the nature of God would have been an inappropriate departure from the essence of the mans question, given what we already knew the man believed about God.

As you have said this thread is going to go off topic, I'll leave it here, might have to talk about God's nature in another place.

Thank you for your time :)

Eesa

de nada :)

i think that would be a good idea... if somebody started a topic i could discuss the full series of doctrines concerning what we believe about theologia and christology... i do not think many muslims are familiar with the full set of our beliefs...

Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

No, but the point I am making is even the most evil of Christians will not be punished! Whereas the most evil of Muslims will be punished (if they are not forgiven).

hola,

i do not mean to sound coy or sarcastic but i am having a difficult time harmonizing what you are saying here with this thread..."to Paradies, a Serial Killer!"

__________________________________________________ ____________

separately as it concerns Catholicism we are judged by our obedience to God... we believe that Salvation comes from both faith and allegiance (including following his commands and the recieving of sacrements)... i think protestants believe something different...

if a person dies without belief in christ, without recieving the sacrements or without striving to do what he commands they die in separation from God and will be judged accordingly...

Dios te bendiga

[glo]

Either way, in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all, they will go to paradise anyway, whereas in Islam they will still be punished for the sins they committed as Muslims if they are not forgiven.

Greetings, Malaikah

We have had these kind of discussions so many times in this forum, that I sometimes wonder whether there is any point in myself or any other non-Muslim trying to explain our faith.
Sometimes I get the sneaky feeling that some people really don't want to hear about other faiths. If wonder if there is a smilie sticking it's fingers in it's ears going 'La la la, I can't hear you' ...)

Anyway, rant over!
I am left to express my surprise that after having spent much time in the Comparative religions section you still make the statement that 'in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all' :rollseyes

Read this thread to remind yourself what Christians think about the concept of doing good deeds:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-vs-works.html

Yes, Christians believe that we gain salvation by faith alone, and that no good deed in the world will evermake us good enough to enter into God's presence.
That's because God is perfect, and we are not!

The concept of faith through salvation does not mean:

• that once 'saved' Christias can do what they like
• that God does not still judge us according to our earthly conduct

God knows best, and he will judge us all justly!

I hope this helps you understand at least some of the Christian teaching.

Peace

[sudais1]

what stature does the Book of Barnaby have in Christianity ??

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

is that same as barnabus? if it is then...isnt it supposed to be the blind disciple of Jesus(pbuh)?

[Jayda]

what stature does the Book of Barnaby have in Christianity ??

hola sudais1,

canon concerning the books of the bible has been closed three times... the canon for all books of the bible was closed at the council of trent in the 16th century, the canon for the books of the new testament were closed at the end of the 4th century (council of rome) and the canon for the gospels, the "holy quaternion" was closed by the early to mid 2nd century... before that the oral tradition held the canon as the holy quaternion. the gospel attributed to barnabas you hear about today is a 16th century forgery, it did not exist at the time any of the canons were closed and so it was never considered for canon... aside from this anachronism various other features of the book are heretical and would fail to pass council or church inquiry anyway...

i do not know about other denominations of Christianity but as far as catholicism is concerned it is not even apocryphal... it is nothing.

Dios te bendiga

[Malaikah]

Hey don't all jump at me at once.:rollseyes

I ASKED dougmusr whether all Christians will go to Heaven no matter what and he said yes, it is not my fault if he mislead me!

I am left to express my surprise that after having spent much time in the Comparative religions section you still make the statement that 'in Christianity a person can become a Christian and continue being sinful because it doesn't matter at all'

Glo, I only said that AFTER I confirmed with dougmusr whether that was the case, and he said yes it was. Obviously there must have been some kind of misunderstanding.

So, does this mean that a person who was Christian but was very evil (a murder, thief, liar, rapist etc) and did not repent sincerely before he died, will NOT go straight to paradise? What happens to him then? Will he have to serve time in hell first? (As he would if he were a muslim?)

i do not mean to sound coy or sarcastic but i am having a difficult time harmonizing what you are saying here with this thread..."to Paradies, a Serial Killer!"

Hi Jayda. :)

I do not see why you do not think they harmonize, they are in fact in perfect harmony. No matter how much a person sins, as long as they turn to God in sincere repentance, they can be forgiven.

This does NOT mean a person can sin now, and say "I will repent later" because they have not meet the conditions of repentance:

There are five essential conditions for repentance: sincerity, regret for what one has done, giving it up immediately, determination not to repeat it in the future, and repenting during the time when repentance will be accepted, i.e., before one dies or before the sun rises in the west.

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=1807&ln=eng

I hope that makes sense.

[Malaikah]

If a healthy person becomes aware of the need to revert and delays the decision until an unexpected illness or accident makes their demise seem imminent, and then proclaims the Shahadah per step 1 above, does step 2 also occur? If so, would you say that the Shadadah is unjust and open to abuse?

I think I found a better answer to this than the one I gave before.

The shahadah has seven conditions, one of which is sincerity. If a person does what you are saying, then they are not sincere and risk having their shahadah being void.

I'm sure there is a better answer out their, I'll let you know if I find it!

[Pygoscelis]

I do not see why you do not think they harmonize, they are in fact in perfect harmony. No matter how much a person sins, as long as they turn to God in sincere repentance, they can be forgiven.

If even the most evil person can be forgiven upon reprenting later, you don't seem to be rewarding good and punishing evil.

[rav]

If even the most evil person can be forgiven upon reprenting later, you don't seem to be rewarding good and punishing evil.

Exactly! A man who kills all his life and then 'sincerely repents' in islam and christianity are forgiven, a ruling that is not in Judaism because Judaism recognizes that you are accountable for your actions no matter what, and Judaism does not missionize, recruit or care for converts therefore, it does not need to "appeal" to the parts of society that have done wrong. Since recruitment is not a goal in Judaism, making concessions and preaching how you could be "forgiven" for all your sins if you join a certain religion is no where to be found in Judaism.

[Malaikah]

If even the most evil person can be forgiven upon reprenting later, you don't seem to be rewarding good and punishing evil.

Why not? Only Allah can forgive. If a person commits a sin that is punishable by (Islamic) law, then the person will be punished if found guilty regardless of whether or not they repent. And that punishment means they are now free of that burden of that sin.

The whole point of life it worship God. He created us as sinners and he gave us the permission to repent of our deeds. And if He finds that we are sincere in our repentance then He has every right to forgive us (on the day of Judgment).

Exactly! A man who kills all his life and then 'sincerely repents' in islam and christianity are forgiven, a ruling that is not in Judaism because Judaism recognizes that you are accountable for your actions no matter what,

So, a man who regrets what he did, is sincere, gives up the sin immediately, and will never ever do it again, does not deserve God's mercy?:rollseyes

How said we are not accountable for our actions?! Of course we are. It is a blessing and a mercy from Allah swt that he grants forgiveness to those of His slaves how deserve it. That does not change the fact that we are accountable in anyway.

By your logic, every single person in existence would have to taste the fire of hell because there is no sinless person! Where is the Mercy and Compassion?

[rav]

So, a man who regrets what he did, is sincere, gives up the sin immediately, and will never ever do it again, does not deserve God's mercy?

Of course, but does that mean he is completly releaved of all of the sins of his past. For example, one can forgive but that does not mean the persons record is cleaned. A man who kills a baby will stand trial no matter how much he repents. Repenting and having a clean slate is a tactic used to get people who feel guilt to join a certain religion. It is preached as a tactic of prostelizing.

How said we are not accountable for our actions?! Of course we are. It is a blessing and a mercy from Allah swt that he grants forgiveness to those of His slaves how deserve it. That does not change the fact that we are accountable in anyway.

By your logic, every single person in existence would have to taste the fire of hell because there is no sinless person! Where is the Mercy and Compassion?

Correct!

In Judaism everyone tastes a little bit of "hell" called Gehenna which in reality is far from what you think of hell. Judaism says hell is a place where we are cleaned of our sins so we may enjoy heaven more, even overall good people must go to be cleaned of sins before entering heaven, yet many have so many sins, or were such terrible people they may never see heaven, it is for G-d to decide. Most sinners are said to suffer in Gehenna no longer than twelve months, but those who commit certain sins are punished forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=115&letter=G

The "eternal burning" hell was created by Christians and then used by Muslims later to basically scare people by saying "if you do not follow us then you will burn forever". But that is just my opinion of course. It is a smart tactic, Judaism's "non-jews who are good will be in heaven with us" tactic does not seem to get many converts because we tell them all, you don;t have to convert! G-d does not care about one religion going to heaven and all else hell! G-d cares about how you lived your life!!!!

[Jayda]

Hi Jayda. :)

I do not see why you do not think they harmonize, they are in fact in perfect harmony. No matter how much a person sins, as long as they turn to God in sincere repentance, they can be forgiven.

This does NOT mean a person can sin now, and say "I will repent later" because they have not meet the conditions of repentance:

There are five essential conditions for repentance: sincerity, regret for what one has done, giving it up immediately, determination not to repeat it in the future, and repenting during the time when repentance will be accepted, i.e., before one dies or before the sun rises in the west.

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=1807&ln=eng

I hope that makes sense.

hola Malaikah,

so muslims have to be very sorry and commit to not doing it again during an appointed time and they are free from sin... gracias. i do not know why you think protestants believe you can be insincere...

but what i am confused about is this:

No, but the point I am making is even the most evil of Christians will not be punished! Whereas the most evil of Muslims will be punished (if they are not forgiven).

it seems like protestants and muslims believe that if you commit a sin, but later decide you are really sorry about it, you will be forgiven... through faith in God only. and it does not even matter what the sin is... like the story about the serial killer who goes to heaven did not need to do anything or offer anything to show his commitment... this is why i do not understand your confusion... i see what you are talking about and what the previous poster was talking about as basically the same thing... forgiveness through faith but not action or obedience.

answering just for Catholics at the moment... forgiveness of sin comes after a sacrement of penance which is a process, first we confess our sins and apologize, Jesus has already sacrificed himself on our behalf so we do not need to give any further sin offering (leviticus 4:3), then we must acknowledge our imperfectness and then we must do something called "penance" in which an actual act or hardship is given to us to physically demonstrate our obedience to God (since we have been disobedient).

the only way forgiveness will come is if we are honest about all the sins we have committed, truly sorry for having sinned, have a clear commitment to never doing them again, and perform the penance.

so it is identify your sin and apologize, give something up to God as a sin offering (the Lamb of God in His mercy has done this for us), acknowledge your weaknesses, and then perform penance. if this is all done with sincerity and commitment we are forgiven.

if we have not reconciled completely or at all then we may not recieve the sacrements, any of them, especially eucharist...

there are only two rites that can free you from prior sin without penance they are the rite of baptism (you become the property of God) this usually frees you from original sin but can free you from all sins if you are baptized at a later time in life...

and the annointing of the sick which includes an act of contrition... penance is still required but if somebody is unable to do penance for health reasons than it must be a "perfect contrition" (motivated by love of God, not fear of hell), and they can be forgiven.

Dios te bendiga

[Malaikah]

Thanks Jayda,

When I said:

No, but the point I am making is even the most evil of Christians will not be punished! Whereas the most evil of Muslims will be punished (if they are not forgiven).

That was a misunderstand because I thought dougmusr was saying that ALL Christians, no matter what they did in life, and even if they do not repent, will go to paradise just like that without being punished! Obviously that is not the case.

[Jayda]

Of course, but does that mean he is completly releaved of all of the sins of his past. For example, one can forgive but that does not mean the persons record is cleaned. A man who kills a baby will stand trial no matter how much he repents. Repenting and having a clean slate is a tactic used to get people who feel guilt to join a certain religion. It is preached as a tactic of prostelizing.



Correct!

In Judaism everyone tastes a little bit of "hell" called Gehenna which in reality is far from what you think of hell. Judaism says hell is a place where we are cleaned of our sins so we may enjoy heaven more, even overall good people must go to be cleaned of sins before entering heaven, yet many have so many sins, or were such terrible people they may never see heaven, it is for G-d to decide. Most sinners are said to suffer in Gehenna no longer than twelve months, but those who commit certain sins are punished forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=115&letter=G

The "eternal burning" hell was created by Christians and then used by Muslims later to basically scare people by saying "if you do not follow us then you will burn forever". But that is just my opinion of course. It is a smart tactic, Judaism's "non-jews who are good will be in heaven with us" tactic does not seem to get many converts because we tell them all, you don;t have to convert! G-d does not care about one religion going to heaven and all else hell! G-d cares about how you lived your life!!!!

hola,

we believe that the greatest punishment of Hell is separation from God and that those who die in separation from God remain in that state... Hell. it comes from disbelief in Him or acts of disobedience (sins) that distance you from Him...

"fear of Hell" is considered "imperfect" if somebody is motivated by fear of Hell much more is required of them to show that their fear of Hell is not masking a latent disobedience toward God... if somebody is motivated by "love of God" which is considered perfect, that is what we are all supposed to be.

...so i think i understand what you are saying but i wanted to point out that we believe Hell is not a good place to be, but if we are doing the things God requires of us out of fear of going to Hell that is not enough and not what we are meant to be... it is not a sin... it is just not enough, complete or "perfect."

Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

Thanks Jayda,

When I said:



That was a misunderstand because I thought dougmusr was saying that ALL Christians, no matter what they did in life, and even if they do not repent, will go to paradise just like that without being punished! Obviously that is not the case.

gracias Malaikah,

i think i understand now... this is confusing for me because i am learning about two different religions at once, islam and protestantism... what dougmusr is saying is still radically different from Catholic beliefs... it is difficult sometimes because it seems like muslims talk to protestants a lot and then in turn think some things about Catholics that are not true... we are very different...

i do not think i agree with the kind of forgiveness both of you are talking about... but i will add that to my response in the why not islam thread...

Dios te bendiga

[Malaikah]

Why not? It is almost identical, except for the penance. I think by penance you mean something like a punishment or test presented to the person in this life rather than the next life? We have something like that to.

For example, for some sins, you have to do something special before you can be forgiven. For example, if you back bite someone, part of the expiation is that you have to apologise to the person, or if apologising makes it worse, then you have tell people something good about the person to compensate for the bad thing you said, and so forth... Also for major crimes like murder and stealing, these crimes are punished by the state, and once the person has been punished for these sins in this life, they are no longer punished for it in the next life because God does not punish a sin twice.

Also, God said that he rushes to punish the believers in this life, whereas he leaves the punishment for the non-believers in the next life, because when God punishes us (by making us go through physical pain, or grief and sorrow etc), He will not punish us in the next life, and that is a good thing because the punishment of the next life is much worse than that of this life.

AND, God only forgives sins committed against Himself. If you commit a sin against a person, and that person does not forgive you, then you have to be punished for that sin before God can forgive you because only forgives the sins that a committed against Himself, and this is a part of justice.

So, Jayda, I hope you realise that this topic is MUCH more complex than anything we have covered in this thread, I dont understand it completely, can i do not think you do either, so please do not add this the the "why not Islam" thread!

[rav]

so i think i understand what you are saying but i wanted to point out that we believe Hell is not a good place to be, but if we are doing the things God requires of us out of fear of going to Hell that is not enough and not what we are meant to be... it is not a sin... it is just not enough, complete or "perfect."

Of course hell is not a good place to be, but in Judaism it is nessesary to go through it to cleanse yourself of your sins. But eventually most common people will reach heaven as long as they lived overall good lives. The Rabbi's have debated for years if one can be an idol worshiper and live a good life, and it is an interesting topic.

[Jayda]

Why not? It is almost identical, except for the penance. I think by penance you mean something like a punishment or test presented to the person in this life rather than the next life? We have something like that to.

For example, for some sins, you have to do something special before you can be forgiven. For example, if you back bite someone, part of the expiation is that you have to apologise to the person, or if apologising makes it worse, then you have tell people something good about the person to compensate for the bad thing you said, and so forth... Also for major crimes like murder and stealing, these crimes are punished by the state, and once the person has been punished for these sins in this life, they are no longer punished for it in the next life because God does not punish a sin twice.

Also, God said that he rushes to punish the believers in this life, whereas he leaves the punishment for the non-believers in the next life, because when God punishes us (by making us go through physical pain, or grief and sorrow etc), He will not punish us in the next life, and that is a good thing because the punishment of the next life is much worse than that of this life.

AND, God only forgives sins committed against Himself. If you commit a sin against a person, and that person does not forgive you, then you have to be punished for that sin before God can forgive you because only forgives the sins that a committed against Himself, and this is a part of justice.

So, Jayda, I hope you realise that this topic is MUCH more complex than anything we have covered in this thread, I dont understand it completely, can i do not think you do either, so please do not add this the the "why not Islam" thread!

hola Malaikah,

gracias for your patience, i am very grateful for your attempts to explain this important and difficult concept to me... you are correct i do not understand it completely, i am becomming more confused every time i think i understand...

i do not know how you could not understand atonement completely... one part of the purpose of life, as i think muslims also believe, is to follow the things God said we must do... He created us so the things He tells us to do must be the things we were made to do... i think this is just part of the universal human experience...

when we do not do these things we must atone for them, and even then christians believe there is a way to do this that God demands from us... admitting we have offended Him, giving something up as a gift or offering (which has been done already for us), turning away from sin with heart and action, and performing a penance to reimbalance the effect of our original Sin...

it is essential for us to reconcile with God because we belong to Him... but we cannot reconcile with God if there is no clear way for us to do so... if it is left to our own imaginations we could justify our sins or fall into deeper sin... so there must be a more simple explanation for repentance in islam... maybe something you follow without thinking about it? or a doctrine maybe... i think maybe in great detail it is complicated but if you could perhaps give me the essence of repentance that would be very helpful...

i do not see the relationship between God punishing you in this life instead of the next... and penance, which is apologetic in nature. i did not get a chance to properly explain before but penance is "a work of satisfaction enjoined upon the recipient of the sacrament," it is something that is done for the "satisfaction" of God, which is meant to please Him and do good above what good is expected of us directly for the sake of trying to offset our wrong. by the time you are actually doing your penance you have already been forgiven (but the forgiveness is revoked if you do not go through with the penance you promised, it signifies you were ingenuous).

so it is not something that is meant as a punishment... you are not supposed to do it with a heavy heart like you have been punished, but instead with happyness you are being given an opportunity to physically make up for what you have done.

__________________________________________________ _____________

i do not see what is identical about these two religions... certain aspects are similar but from what you have explained the kind of atonement islam calls for is very incomplete in the eyes of the Church...

what i am not seeing in Islam, and perhaps if you could just explain further it could help, is very much action, though i kind of see some... we believe our forgiveness comes through faith and action, faith includes confessing our sins to God and being truly sorry for them, and making promises to not do them again and to complete a penance, and action comes through making an offering to God, literally giving something up to Him (since our sins are so great the Lamb of God has already been offered... nothing additional is necessary here), and performing a penance to do something good in action to counteract the bad we have done...

then our promise of forgiveness is truly fulfilled... so it is words and actions...

what you seem to be saying is that if you are very sorry, and have faith in God then you will be forgiven (which i think is what the protestants here said... i think) but muslims should expect (and maybe be greatful for) trials, tests and punishments from God... here on earth... for our sins, even though we have been forgiven, so that the punishment after is not as great...

so the action is really something that God puts upon you as a punishment... even after you have confessed which means you are forgiven, it is not something you are choosing to do to make things right with God...

but i am still very confused, i do not understand how you can have faith in God and be forgiven but still be punished on earth so you are not punished in heaven... when you are forgiven isnt that supposed to be the end of it?

maybe this deserves its own thread instead of being discussed here on the why not islam thread...

Dios te bendiga

[dougmusr]

I ASKED dougmusr whether all Christians will go to Heaven no matter what and he said yes, it is not my fault if he mislead me!

I gave a short and long answer, sorry if you feel misled.

All people sin, all will die as sinners, and all will die either forgiven or unforgiven. Those who die perfectly sinless or forgiven will be in heaven, those who die imperfect and unforgiven will be in hell. Forgiveness must be obtained while alive.

People generally consider themselves as good people because they measure themselves against other people, and one only has to read the news paper to know that there are horrendous crimes comitted daily. God does not measure people against other people. God measures people against His standard.

The Bible does not teach that God forgives on a point system by allowing one to offset a sin with a corresponding good deed.

So to both Jayda and Malaikah, lets say both of you died today and had a sin or sins for which you had not sought God's forgiveness and done penance prior to your untimely demise. Can you give me an idea of which sins you could commit and enter Heaven, and which sins would require Hell?

[Malaikah]

Thanks for clarifying.

I can't answer your question directly, but in Islam, there are two types on sin, minor and major.

The minor sins are forgiven more easily. For example, the five daily prayers wipe out the minor sins committed (one prayer wipes out the sins committed in the time between thay prayer and the one before it). Fasting the whole month of Ramadan wipes out all a persons minor sins... etc So if you go to God with these sins on the Day of Judgment, then he might forgive them of punish them.

If you're not forgiven of the major sins that you committed in this life (i.e. you did not repent and you didn't take the prescribed punishment) then well, I would take to be that person on the DOJ. :X It is upto God what He does for them, and that depends on the persons circumstances etc.

I can't give you a better answer than that on this, because I am not too knowledgeable in this area, perhaps someone else can...

[Umar001]

what i am not seeing in Islam, and perhaps if you could just explain further it could help, is very much action, though i kind of see some... we believe our forgiveness comes through faith and action, faith includes confessing our sins to God and being truly sorry for them, and making promises to not do them again and to complete a penance, and action comes through making an offering to God, literally giving something up to Him (since our sins are so great the Lamb of God has already been offered... nothing additional is necessary here), and performing a penance to do something good in action to counteract the bad we have done...

Am totally confused, so you made an offering, well God offered himself to be killed by people, so he is punished for you, and that is neccessary, as in that is enough, so why would you need to perform penance to do something good in action to counteract the bad you done? Is the sacrafise of God only for some sins and the rest you have to do pennance for yourself?

Eesa

God measures people against His standard.

The standard being that any type of sin, small or big or tiny or even lying to save your life or kids or even not stoning someone = Death?

If even the most evil person can be forgiven upon reprenting later, you don't seem to be rewarding good and punishing evil.

Well that depends on how you view things, in our view the rejecting or acceptance of God Almighty may not be a great thing, it might be seen as a trivial thing, with comments like 'Oh so and so embraced Christianity' or 'Oh So and so embraced Islam' whilst these things may not seem great, these things are great in the sight of God. The Kalimah, the testimony of faith is one of the heaviest things on the scales of deeds, whilst it is only a sentance of words. For example, look at how Allah tells Muslims and non-Muslims that the mountains are about to shatter because Christians ascribe to Him a son,

YUSUFALI: They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
YUSUFALI: Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
YUSUFALI: At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
YUSUFALI: That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.

Surah 19:88-91

So it is clear that what we might think is trivial might be a big thing in the view of God, and when we ponder then how big of a thing it is, to deny the one who created you and made you and provides for you and so forth. So yes, someone might be forgiven when they repent sincerly since repentance is a big matter, at the same time killing and taking of life is too, but repentance is something which is more 'heavy' for lack of better words, but repentance would also mean that the person would try to make right what he done wrong. Such punishments could occour, for example the fact that people will repay others from their good deeds on the day of Judgement for wrongdoing they have done to others.

Exactly! A man who kills all his life and then 'sincerely repents' in islam and christianity are forgiven, a ruling that is not in Judaism because Judaism recognizes that you are accountable for your actions no matter what,..

So if a person does not know a law is it right for him to be accountable for what he has done?

[Jayda]

7. Jesus said that he had not come to change the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17). The Law of Moses teaches that there is one God (Exodus 20:3). If Jesus was introducing the concept of Trinity, why did he not say that he was changing the Law of Moses or introducing a different understanding of it?

Hola Ironbeard,

These are the two quotes you referred to:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

And

”You shall have no other gods before Me.”

Matthew 5: 17 is about “Old Law” and “New Law,” the Law and the Prophets Jesus was talking about represented the Old Law, but his commandments, ministry, life and brought the “New Law.” Catholics consider the Old Law to be “imperfect” and “incomplete” because of what is said in Matthew 5: 17.

We believe that the Old Law found justification in men, through “the flesh” while the new law finds justification through “the Spirit” (of God), through Christ. This is what is meant in Romans 8:3-4 by:

”For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the Summa Theologica that the imperfection of the Old Law was fulfilled in Christ through his works and through his doctrines.

“In His works, because He was willing to be circumcised and to fulfill the other legal observances, which were binding for the time being; according to Gal. 4:4: "Made under the Law."

In His doctrine He fulfilled the precepts of the Law in three ways.

First, by explaining the true sense of the Law. This is clear in the case of murder and adultery, the prohibition of which the Scribes and Pharisees thought to refer only to the exterior act: wherefore Our Lord fulfilled the Law by showing that the prohibition extended also to the interior acts of sins.

Secondly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law by prescribing the safest way of complying with the statutes of the Old Law. Thus the Old Law forbade perjury: and this is more safely avoided, by abstaining altogether from swearing, save in cases of urgency.

Thirdly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law, by adding some counsels of perfection: this is clearly seen in Mt. 19:21, where Our Lord said to the man who affirmed that he had kept all the precepts of the Old Law: "One thing is wanting to thee: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell whatsoever thou hast," etc. (St. Thomas combines Mt. 19:21 with Mk. 10:21.”)

So we believe he literally was the epitome of the Law, everything he was doing was the way adherence to the Law was meant to be performed. We also believe the counsels he gave and the explanations of the “true sense” or meaning of the Law were how they were always meant to be understood. So in that way Jesus perfected and fulfilled the imperfect unfulfilled Law.

This is why we do not say Jesus “introduced” ideas like the theological nature of God, or casting the first stone, or the Golden Rule, or not judging. These things might not have been known well to those who practiced the Old Law, or may not have been spoken and practiced before but they were always at the heart of the Law. So we say that Jesus revealed the true understanding and practice of these laws and thereby fulfilled it.

To put it shortly there is no contradiction between Exodus 20:3 and Matthew 28:19 or Exodus 20:3 and John 10: 30, it is the same law, same command but the perfect and complete understanding of it. Not a modification, a clarification…

So here is your question again

7. Jesus said that he had not come to change the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17). The Law of Moses teaches that there is one God (Exodus 20:3). If Jesus was introducing the concept of Trinity, why did he not say that he was changing the Law of Moses or introducing a different understanding of it?

And my answer is that the continuation of the verse says that while he is not “abolishing” the Law or the Prophets, he is “fulfilling” them. Romans explains that the way we practice the Law is different because it has been made perfect in Christ…

I think what is confusing you is that you have mistaken “abolish” which means do away with, for “introducing a new understanding” or “altering.” Because the correct interpretation shows that Jesus is saying exactly what you are suggesting he should have said: “why did he not say that he was changing the Law of Moses or introducing a different understanding of it?”.

The Old Law still stands, but it is fulfilled in Christ… that makes it perfect and so naturally the Law appears different in practice after its perfection in Christ than it did before it. This is why Triunity is actually how “the One God” is meant to be theologically thought of (singular and unified in Three), whereas this might not have been known or known as well before Jesus.

Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

I gave a short and long answer, sorry if you feel misled.

All people sin, all will die as sinners, and all will die either forgiven or unforgiven. Those who die perfectly sinless or forgiven will be in heaven, those who die imperfect and unforgiven will be in hell. Forgiveness must be obtained while alive.

People generally consider themselves as good people because they measure themselves against other people, and one only has to read the news paper to know that there are horrendous crimes comitted daily. God does not measure people against other people. God measures people against His standard.

The Bible does not teach that God forgives on a point system by allowing one to offset a sin with a corresponding good deed.

So to both Jayda and Malaikah, lets say both of you died today and had a sin or sins for which you had not sought God's forgiveness and done penance prior to your untimely demise. Can you give me an idea of which sins you could commit and enter Heaven, and which sins would require Hell?

hola Dougmusr,

there are three kinds of sins in order of importance: The Unforgiveable Sin, Mortal Sins and Venial Sins.

the first two you will go to hell (or in the case of mortal sins there is a possibility of purgatory), venial sins do not result in ****ation... they are sins in which it does not concern a grave matter, it is not committed in full knowledge that what you are doing is sinful, and it is not committed with deliberate and complete consent... if you have enough you might still go to purgatory but that is only temporarily while you are perfected to go to heaven (a sinless state and place).

if you do something grave, intentionally knowing it is a sin, or with deliberate and full consent it is a mortal sin which you must confess for... if you do not you certainly risk purgatory and might still possibly hell... a killer for example who kills deliberately and does not go through the process of confession (including penance) will most likely go to hell...

the Unforgiveable Sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit... Jesus Himself said that there is no pardon for this...

Dios te bendiga

[lolwatever]

This is what troubles me most about the three monotheistic religions. The notion that whatever God does is Just and Right BECAUSE he is God. Please correct me if that is not the notion being presented here.

I have seen it elsewhere.

It is frightening.

It shows a complete lack of morality independent from the religious belief. I have a very hard time believing that even the most hard core religionists could have no morals independent of their God beliefs. Surely even they have some independent values. Don't they?

I do get nervous about this when I see them killing people and doing horrible things in the name of their God. Maybe they don't... that is a very scary thought. For if true, then all that has to happen is for them to be convinced that God wants them to do a horrible act, and they'll do it.

Well the god we worship has 99 attributes, and a god with those attributes by definition is right in what he does.

At the end of the day we'll all return to him, so its either we play by his rules and endup in paradise, or challenge him and endup in hell for ever.

Think of what i said from the perspective of someone who believes in god, not an athiest. Otherwise you'll just confuse yourself.

About accusing people of killing others in name of god, ever clicked that the Muslims in the country you live in don't do that, or in any other country that's not in war :?

Back to topic i guess...

[lolwatever]

Merciful and forgiving? No. I think not.

This is the same God that sends you to hell with no chance of parole simply for not believing in him. That isn't merciful. And it isn't forgiving, given the lack of being able to leave Hell once yer sent there.

Merciful to those who seek his help and forgiveness.
Forgiving to those who ask for his forgiveness.
Just to everyone, including to those who disbelieve in him.

The 2nd paragraph, kind alike a serial killer goin around killing people and then saying 'the system isn't merciful, it's not forgiving', because there's no chance of leaving jail once i'm sent there.

In your case, you refuse to even read the quran (as you admitted in another thread) , and then make false claims about the creator, and lie about him, and then expect to escape punishment :rollseyes

[Grace Seeker]

hola Dougmusr,

there are three kinds of sins in order of importance: The Unforgiveable Sin, Mortal Sins and Venial Sins.

the first two you will go to hell (or in the case of mortal sins there is a possibility of purgatory), venial sins do not result in ****ation... they are sins in which it does not concern a grave matter, it is not committed in full knowledge that what you are doing is sinful, and it is not committed with deliberate and complete consent... if you have enough you might still go to purgatory but that is only temporarily while you are perfected to go to heaven (a sinless state and place).

if you do something grave, intentionally knowing it is a sin, or with deliberate and full consent it is a mortal sin which you must confess for... if you do not you certainly risk purgatory and might still possibly hell... a killer for example who kills deliberately and does not go through the process of confession (including penance) will most likely go to hell...

the Unforgiveable Sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit... Jesus Himself said that there is no pardon for this...

Dios te bendiga

Here we see a point at which there is some difference in the teaching of respective Christians groups. The view experessed by Jayda is indeed the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. But it is not just Roman Catholic. There are even some Protestants who speak of the "Seven Deadly Sins". So, the idea that there are big sin and lesser sins is common in many religions and is even present in some parts of Christianity.

For myself, I see all sin (yes, even the litte, venial sins) as sin. Now the whole concept of sin is pretty broad. It embraces the entire gamut of human failure as expressed above. And in scripture there are several different words used to express the concept.

The most general of those words in the New Testament is hamartia. hamartia is used in regard to offenses against morals and laws (whether humankind's law or God's law). hamartia is derived from the classical Greek (people like Homer to Aristotle) word hamartano and originally meant to miss, as in miss the mark when aiming at a target.

When the Jews, 200 years before the time of Jesus, translated their scriptures from Hebrew into Greek, they also used the word hamartia as a way to speak about sin. They in particular used hamartia to translate the Hebrew word hatta't which was used to describe one who lapses, and they also used hamartia to translate the Hebrew word 'awon which referred to a conscious deviation from the right way and the concept of rebellion, specifically rebellion against God. Here we see the idea that sin then is something that separates an individual or even a whole nation from God. Who is it then that determines what is sin and what is not sin? The same one who determines what is and what is not the standard of righteousness -- God. God is the yardstick, not humans, not our comparisons with one another as some being not as bad as others. God is the yardstick of what is right and what is wrong.

In the New Testament this concept is further developed. Jesus speaks about the forgiveness of this short-coming in people. But for Jesus sin is not just that which comes from breaking a law or a command, it is anything that falls short of being the person God wants us to be. Yet it is to imperfect people just like this that Jesus comes to bring and announce God's forgiveness.


Another word that is used in the New Testament to talk about sin is the Greek word adikia. To understand the connotations to this word one must contrast it with dikaios meaning just or righteous (the a at the front of a Greek word unfunctioning much like the prefix "un-" does in English) so that adikia means unrighteous.

Thus, sinners are those who do not do what is right in God's eyes, they fall short of God's standard, they even rebell against God seeking their own way as if their way were the law, the standard of right and wrong; when of course God sets the standard of right and wrong, not us humans.

As such, in my opinion, there really are no big and little sins. Either you are living up to what God desires or you are not. True, some fall far more short of God's view of righteous behavior than others. But when trying to jump the gap between human imperfection and divine perfection, falling short by an inch is as deadly as falling short by a mile. Thus, though human may speak of big and little sins (i.e. big and little misses of the mark God has set for us), both sets of individuals end up having fallen short of God's expectations of righteousness and both miss the mark. And both can be described by the same word -- sinner. And as we have seen above, a sinner is one who is separated from God.

The only good news in this is what I described above of how Jesus came with a message of forgiveness and God's acceptance inspite of our moral failure. That message was that God wanted to be united though we were/are neither perfect nor righteous. In the Gospel accounts, it is those (the scribes and the pharisees and the teachers of the law) who reject Jesus' message and trust in their own righteousness rather than God's gift of forgiveness that are left unforgiven.

As far as the "Unforgivable Sin", this is it. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, doesn't come in cursing God. It comes from walking away from the forgiveness offered to us and trusting in our own righteousness. In other words it isn't by the things we do that Christians (or anyone) gets to heaven. It is a gracious gift of God, and trusting in him to be gracious and forgiving of our falling short of his standard, but still striving to meet it as best as we can, is the key to salvation. Christians believe that means trusting in Jesus, but that part of the discussion is for other parts of this thread, not in answer to the present questions.

[Jayda]

8. Jesus prophesied that men of his generation would not pass away without witnessing his second coming and the falling of stars (Mark 9:1, 13:30). Why was this prophecy unfulfilled? Why was it that Jesus did not return within the lifetime of his generation?

Hola Ironbeard,

The passages you are referencing are

And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."

And

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

And your question is about whether Jesus promised the second coming would be during the life of the disciples.

First let us talk about Mark 9:1 because I think you might be confused about its relevance to what you wish to know… Mark 9:1 is describing an event called “the transfiguration” which is when Jesus went on top of the mountain and transformed to demonstrate his divinity, in all his glory. The prophets recognized and adored Him and the Father confirmed what He said at Jesus baptism that this is his Son and that we must listen to Him. More information concerning the Transfiguration is here.

The transfiguration is talked about in all of the gospels, Mark 9:1 is the beginning of Marks narrative of the events. That is why Mark chapter 9 is titled “The Transfiguration.” This is a link to the entire chapter of Mark 9.

Mark 9:1 was a prophecy about something different than what you are asking… and Mark 9:1 was fulfilled as described in the rest of Mark 9.

Mark 13:30 is a translation issue. The word comes from “generatio” and “genea” which both mean “become from” in Latin and Greek. A more guided translation in this passage is something closer to “race” or “nation,” which the NASB includes in the footnote.

The use of the word “generation” in Mark 13:30 is defined thusly in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Independently of the idea of time, generation is employed to mean a race or class of men as characterized by the same recurring condition or quality. In this sense, the Bible speaks of a "just generation", literally "generation of the just" [Ps. xiii (Heb., xiv), 6; etc.], a "perverse generation", equivalent to: "generation of the wicked" [Deut., xxxii, 5; Mark, ix, 18 (Gr., verse 19); etc.].”

This more correct translation of Mark 13:30 referred to in the NASB footnotes shows that Jesus means that the class or collective grouping of people experiencing the end of times Jesus was describing would experience all of these things all at once… This is a warning to not interpret every earthquake, war or famine as the end of the world, all of those things and more will happen to the people of that time.

But the key is that the Latin word “generatio” used in Mark 13:30 and in other areas is meant to be independent of time. Since Jesus was already talking in the abstract about what the end of times looked like and what those people would experience we was not talking about the actual “generation” of people presently living, as understood in a temporal context that “generation” usually carries in English.

So here is your question:

8. Jesus prophesied that men of his generation would not pass away without witnessing his second coming and the falling of stars (Mark 9:1, 13:30). Why was this prophecy unfulfilled? Why was it that Jesus did not return within the lifetime of his generation?

And the answer is that Mark 9:1 is not talking about the end of times… it is talking about the Transfiguration which is something different, that prophecy has already been fulfilled (see the rest of Mark 9).

And in Mark 13:30 the translation of the Latin word “generatio” into the English word “generation” does not convey exactly what the word generation means… which is definitely non temporal and closer to something like “race” or “class.” So Jesus was talking about the people experiencing the end of the world abstractly, he was not referring directly to the generation of people living in his time or threatening them with the end of the world. This prophecy has yet to be fulfilled since Judgment Day has not yet arrived.

Gracias, Dios te bendiga