Christianity or Islam?

format_quote Originally Posted by Tayyaba

Im sorry but u are wrong. If u dont believe me go read it urself. we'll see whos wrong. You obviously have not read it.

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." [1 Corinthians 11:5-10]

In the book of Leviticus, Chapter 11, v.7, it is recorded that God declares the pig to be unclean for believers. Then, in verse 8, God says: ' You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you'. This command is repeated in Deuteronomy 14;7-8. Then, in Isaiah 65:2-4, and 66:17, God issues a stern warning against those who eat pork.

Some people are aware of this prohibition from God, but they say that they can eat pork because St. Paul said that all food is clean in his letter to the Romans 14:20. St. Paul said this because he believed (as he wrote in his letter to the Ephesians 2:14-15) that Jesus had abolished the Law with all its commandments and regulations. He seems, however, to have misunderstood what he heard from Jesus. In the Gospel According to Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is reported to have said quite the contrary, as follows: ' Do not think that I have come to abolish the law...' Jesus then went on in that passage (in verse 19) to denounce anyone who would break the smallest commandment and teach others likewise. He also praised his true followers who will practice and teach even the smallest commandments. One of the commandments, as we have seen, is to stay away from pork.

Tayyaba, thank you for your post. You did a good job of trying to support your position regarding pork, but you are still wrong to apply those O.T. verses to Christians. They were written to Jews and apply only to Jews. You cannot interpret what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-20 in such a way as to make Paul misunderstanding it, and therefore writing something wrong to believers in his epistles. That would probably be like one of the "contradictions" that Muslims use to discredit the Bible. What Paul wrote is just as inspired of God as what Matthew wrote when he quoted Jesus. So you must interpret the two in such as way as to uphold the validity of both.

Let's look at both. First, Matthew 5:17-20 says:

17. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18. "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19. "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Now, let's look at Romans 14:

1. Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
2. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
3. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.
4. Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
5. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
6. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.
7. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.
8. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
9. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
10. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11. For it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God.''
12. So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.
13. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way.
14. I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
16. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil;
17. for the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19. Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.
20. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.
21. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
22. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

How do I reconcile the two? By concluding this: Jesus came to fulfill the law. By His perfect life and His sacrificial death for our sins and resurrection from the grave, He fulfilled it and so we are no longer under the Mosaic law but now Christians are under the Law of Christ, which is to love one another as He has loved us. He said in John 13:34, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." One chapter back from Romans 14 above, we read:
Romans 13:
8. Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery,'' "You shall not murder,'' "You shall not steal,'' "You shall not bear false witness,'' "You shall not covet,'' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.''
10. Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Paul applies that in Romans 14 when he says in verse 15, "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.

The other thing we need to remember is that under the New Covenant, Christians are not under law but under grace. In Romans 6 we read,
14. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

For the Jews, however, who have kept themselves under the law, they are bound by the law to obey the WHOLE law, all 600+ commandments, even though they don't realize that they will never be made righteous in God's sight by trying to keep it all. Paul, in Galatians 3 says,
10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.''
11. But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "The just shall live by faith.''
12. Yet the law is not of faith, but "The man who does them shall live by them.''
13. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree''),
21. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
22. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

And in Romans 3, Paul said:
19. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

I now come to the most important verses dealing with this subject of pork. Paul writes to young Timothy in 1Timothy 4:
1. Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
2. speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
3. forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
5. for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
6. If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.

Verses 4 & 5 tells the Christian that there are no longer clean/unclean distinctions, and all are good and nothing to be refused IF it is received with thanksgiving, because it is sanctified (or set apart for special use) by the word of God and prayer. When I pray before a meal, I am thanking God for the food and also asking God to sanctify the food, or make it good for the use of my body, to nourish and strengthen it.

Notice also verse 6 in which Paul tells Timothy that Timothy will be a good minister of Jesus Christ if he so instructs believers, contrary to what is said in Matt. 5:19. So, the commandments of the Law or Prophets referred to in Matt. 5:19 are obviously not applicable to the New Covenant believers who are "not under law but under grace."

Now, with respect to the second item you mentioned, a woman's covering, you are correct and I was wrong. When you said, "woman r supposed to be covered," I envisioned the Muslim berka (is that what it's called?) which covers the entire body except the eyes (I guess, correct me if I'm wrong again). Christian women are not commanded to wear that sort of thing, nor even veils, but only dress in "modest apparel" (1 Tim. 2:8), which unfortunately they don't always. The passage you cite, 1 Cor. 11:5-10, deals only with a covering on the head, and perhaps only in the assembly of believers, not generally elsewhere in public. Notice it says, "..every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head" (verse 5). And verses 17 and 18 talk about them coming together in the church. A woman can, of course, pray anywhere, but prophesying seems like it would be done in an assembly, although elsewhere women are told to be in silence there. In addition, the head covering or hat for women in the assembly might be merely a "custom" (see verse 16) and perhaps not universally applicable for all times and places. In any event, there are a few groups of believers who still practice that, like the Plymouth Brethren churches.

I apologize for anything I said that was not loving, such as the comment about getting educated, etc. That was wrong. In the future, please give the verse citation (1 Cor. 11, Matt. 5, etc.) when you're referring to something Christians should be doing, etc. It would have saved a lot of this.

Peace

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Phil12123

Tayyaba, thank you for your post. You did a good job of trying to support your position regarding pork, but you are still wrong to apply those O.T. verses to Christians. They were written to Jews and apply only to Jews.

This raises an interesting question: why do Christians still have the Old Testament as part of the Bible when it contains rulings that they do not consider applicable to them?

You cannot interpret what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-20 in such a way as to make Paul misunderstanding it, and therefore writing something wrong to believers in his epistles. That would probably be like one of the "contradictions" that Muslims use to discredit the Bible. What Paul wrote is just as inspired of God as what Matthew wrote when he quoted Jesus. So you must interpret the two in such as way as to uphold the validity of both.

In other words, even if two passages contradict each other, don't just read them and interpret what they say objectively - instead, assume they're both true and find a way of stretching your interpretation in order to accommodate both.

If Christians are happy with that reasoning, then fine - but it wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar

Another good one is number 95:

Islam teaches me to defend myself if someone attacks me.
Jesus told me to turn the other cheek.

Could that be the explanation for why Sunnis and Shias are killing each other in places like Iraq and Pakistan? Perhaps they are following Islam and they feel attacked by the other group, so they defend themselves? And obviously after the "defense" the other group also feels attacked so it defends itself in turn? And they keep the cycle forever?

And could that be the reason why in a place like America several different Christian denominations keep perfect peace among themselves, because they turn the other cheek? If they perceive an insult they forgive instead of seeking revenge?

And that could explain why America is peaceful and rich and why Iraq and Pakistan are violent and poor?

It's funny how Christians try to act so self-righteous, and act as if Christianity doesn't have a history of warfare (like any religion), and slaughtering and killing people, and fighting. I don't know if you've ever heard the quote that goes something like this... "If Jesus knew what Christians were doing in his name, he'd never stop puking." I think that was Woody Allen. He's right, though.

And don't even get me started on the violent, incestual bible.

Originally Posted by Phil12123
2. Christianity, which consists of GOD performing the work of redemption and reaching down to man to give him as a free gift the salvation that he needs and without which he is totally without hope. The recipient of that salvation enters into a personal relationship with God, by grace through faith, which explains why some have actually called this not a religion but a relationship.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

How do you know that god is doing any of this?

Because I have personally experienced it. I have received that free gift and now have a personal relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ.

How do you know that words in this context like 'grace' and 'redemption' aren't just examples of empty jargon created by theologians? What do you actually mean by 'grace'?

Because the Holy Spirit have opened my blind eyes to understand those words in a personal way, so that they are filled with real meaning and not simply empty jargon created by theologians.

"Grace" means undeserved or unmerited favor and love. I'm a sinner saved by grace, meaning I don't deserve the salvation or rescue God has provided me, a lost sinner, with. I deserve hell, like all sinners. But God, in sending His sinless Son to pay for my sins at Calvary, has rescued me from my sins and the just punishment I deserve for them. And that was all based on His love which I did not deserve or merit (His grace). Redemption describes God's buying me back from the bondage of sin, like when a slave is on the trading block and someone comes along and purchases him and then sets him free. I no more deserve to be set free from my sin than the slave deserves to be bought and released.

Ephesians 2:
8. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9. not of works, lest anyone should boast.

By "grace" (the unmerited love and favor of God) I have been saved (rescued) through faith (complete trust in the finished Work of Christ), and all that is not MY doing, it is the GIFT of God, not as a result of anything I have done (no good works or good deeds), lest I have something to boast of.

Galatians 6:14. But God forbid that I should glory [boast] except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

1 Cor. 1:31; Jer. 9:24: "He that glorieth [boasts], let him glory in the Lord."

Peace

So God has a son.....and Jesus has a daddy...who happenz to be God?? What about the trinity??? U believe in that?

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by cool_jannah

Firstly, u need to get that demeaning and offensive avatar of ures down. The basic requirement of every human being is to be atleast a Muslim (or a submitter to the One True Lord). What you are doing is Shirk(associating partners with the Lord)

Are you unable to tolerate the beliefs of others?

Peace

I think the sister just said it because it may go against the forum rules:


While interfaith discussions are allowed promoting another religion is not allowed on the discussion board. This discussion board was created to promote Islam, not another religion. There are many other discussion boards on the Web which you can promote your religion other than Islam. 5% warning


Plus, associating anyone else with Allaah is the worst of all sins in islam. And nowhere does it explicitly say in the bible that Jesus is God. Nowhere does it say trinity in the bible either, yet these are the most important aspects of the christian faith.


Allaah Almighty knows best.


Peace.

whoz avatar??

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

This raises an interesting question: why do Christians still have the Old Testament as part of the Bible when it contains rulings that they do not consider applicable to them?

Because the Old Testament is the Word of God as much so as the New Testament. The O.T. looks forward to the New, and the New completes or fulfills the Old. Neither one is complete without the other. But in understanding them, any portion of them, we must consider three important things: context, context, context! WHO was speaking, TO WHOM was it spoken, WHEN was it spoken, WHY was it spoken, WHAT else was spoken on the same subject, etc., etc. The cults like to take things out of context to prove some pet doctrine. Every verse has a context---the chapter it's part of, the book it's in, the Testament it's in, the time, place, and culture it's in, etc., etc.

In other words, even if two passages contradict each other, don't just read them and interpret what they say objectively - instead, assume they're both true and find a way of stretching your interpretation in order to accommodate both.

Well, yes, I assume they are both true, because I believe they are both the Word of God. You may not believe any of it is the Word of God. That is your prerogative. But I do. So then it is not so much "stretching" my interpretation but arriving at the correct interpretation.

If Christians are happy with that reasoning, then fine - but it wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

On the contrary, there are some situations in a court of law where a court is called on to interpret a statute, for example, as applied to a specific set of facts. The statute might be ruled unconstitutional if interpreted one way, or constitutional if interpreted another way. The rule of law is to uphold the statute's constitutionality if at all possible. The meaning of a statute is first found by looking objectively at the words on their face. Is anything ambiguous about the plain words of the statute? If so, the court might then look at the intention of the lawmaker (Congress or other legislative body).

Similarly, in interpreting any portion of Scripture, we first look at the plain words objectively. But if it appears that those plain words contradict other plain words, we have to consider other matters like the context of the two, what the Holy Spirit might have meant when inspiring both, perhaps at different times and places and under different circumstances dealing with different people. For example, God gave Adam and Eve only "every green herb for meat (food)" (Gen. 1:30). But later, after the flood, He gave "every moving thing that liveth" (Gen. 9:3), with no distinction between clean and unclean, for food. Then when the law was given to Moses we see the distinction of clean and unclean animals relative to food to eat. All that is not contradictory if you consider the different times and places and people God was dealing with.

Peace

Greetings,

Thanks for your interesting reply.

format_quote Originally Posted by Phil12123

Because the Old Testament is the Word of God as much so as the New Testament. The O.T. looks forward to the New, and the New completes or fulfills the Old.

Or in some cases, updates and adjusts it. By, for example, having a totally different character in the place of god.

Well, yes, I assume they are both true, because I believe they are both the Word of God. You may not believe any of it is the Word of God. That is your prerogative. But I do. So then it is not so much "stretching" my interpretation but arriving at the correct interpretation.

Of course it is. You're stretching your interpretation in order to fit in with your prior assumptions.

On the contrary, there are some situations in a court of law where a court is called on to interpret a statute, for example, as applied to a specific set of facts. The statute might be ruled unconstitutional if interpreted one way, or constitutional if interpreted another way. The rule of law is to uphold the statute's constitutionality if at all possible. The meaning of a statute is first found by looking objectively at the words on their face. Is anything ambiguous about the plain words of the statute? If so, the court might then look at the intention of the lawmaker (Congress or other legislative body).

I stand corrected, although I was really thinking about evidence. If a court had two pieces of evidence, one of which invalidated the other, would the court accept both of them? I think not.

Peace

Originally Posted by cool_jannah
Firstly, u need to get that demeaning and offensive avatar of ures down. The basic requirement of every human being is to be atleast a Muslim (or a submitter to the One True Lord). What you are doing is Shirk(associating partners with the Lord)

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Are you unable to tolerate the beliefs of others?

format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah

I think the sister just said it because it may go against the forum rules:


While interfaith discussions are allowed promoting another religion is not allowed on the discussion board. This discussion board was created to promote Islam, not another religion. There are many other discussion boards on the Web which you can promote your religion other than Islam. 5% warning

Plus, associating anyone else with Allaah is the worst of all sins in islam. And nowhere does it explicitly say in the bible that Jesus is God. Nowhere does it say trinity in the bible either, yet these are the most important aspects of the christian faith.

When I signed on to this forum there were no avatars appropriate for non-Muslims except the one I first picked (Heaven/Hell). When I got my 50 messages in, I wanted to change it to more reflect my faith. I don't consider it "demeaning and offensive" or "promoting another religion" any more than ALL my posts do. But if the Moderators want to send me a private message to change my avatar, I will try to come up with another one. This isn't my forum and I don't make the rules, but I am willing to abide by them. It would be nice if the forum had some generic, non-Muslim avatars for non-Muslims to choose from.

Peace

Yeah.....u gota suggestion of whatu would like?

format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah

Plus, associating anyone else with Allaah is the worst of all sins in islam. And nowhere does it explicitly say in the bible that Jesus is God. Nowhere does it say trinity in the bible either, yet these are the most important aspects of the christian faith.

Why do you say, "And nowhere does it explicitly say in the bible that Jesus is God"? Isn't the following explicit?

John 1:
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. He was in the beginning with God.
3. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9. That was the true Light which gives light to every man who comes into the world.
10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
12. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name:
13. who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Colossians 2:9 says, "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. (NRSV, NIV)

Even the O.T. testifies that He is God:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Who is that prophecy talking about if not Jesus Christ? Some of it is yet to be fulfilled ("government will be upon His shoulder") but some of it has already been fulfilled, at Bethlehem ("unto us a Child is born") and Calvary ("unto us a Son is given").

You are correct in saying the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible, but the teaching that it stands for is in the Bible. And if you were to say the Bible has been corrupted or changed, I would say, Then how many other places does it also say He is God, that have been changed or removed? Maybe many more, but I will accept the ones we have.

Peace