jesus knows no bible

[Hugo]

Salaam/Peace

errors and mistakes by men we find in Bible and different laws came to mankind from time to time - these 2 are not same. Messengers received some new laws. It does not mean previous laws were wrong or God corrected His mistake.

It's the wish of God Almighty that He approved something for some generations, later banned this or banned something for Jewish or other people and made lawful for Muslims.

I see your point but I am having difficulty with the logic involved. Muslims say the Qu'ran existed eternally before all time. If so why would it have such a temporal nature, that this or that event was ok then not ok and often we are not talking about centuries but tiny events such as the prophet being allowed more than 4 wives or music being forbidden. It would also seem logical to me that such abrogation should continues since times are always changing if that was the rationale?

 

[kidcanman]

Asalamu alikum! (Peace be on you!)

peace and honor be upon you as well sister.

Regarding your response to me i am interested in this quote.

People say that the Bible was written by inspired people. But who gives you the surety that these people were really inspired?

So far christians of this forum have cited maybee 6 quotes from the NT to prove that the followers of jesus have the power of "decernment".

I have easily showed how these passages definitely do not give christians the right to claim that the NT is an insperation from god.

it is safe to conclude that my refutations are accurate because not 1 christian has actively challenged ANY of my refutations.

so far no christian was able to show where peter claimed to have the power of decernemnt, or where peter decided to pass this power down to his successors. nor has any christian been able to accurately show where jesus gave the power of decernment to peter, or to the church.

There is no passage in the NT that claims that the NT is inspired. Jesus does not make that claim. Nor can any christian cite a passage where the christians or the church are given the power of decernment.

therefore christians have made a claim that they obviously have no right to make. and therefore the claim that the NT is inspired by god is not a valid claim.

 

[Uthman]

I know this is difficult, given the nature of the topic, but I urge members to try not to go off on a tangent discussing the Qur'an instead of the Bible. Discussion which is specifically about the Qur'an should go in a separate thread.

 

[kidcanman]

Yes, I am a Christian. The answer to your question is not so simple and might depend on whether we are speaking technically, metaphorically, or in common lay speach.

If we are speaking metaphorically then it is of no concequence because in that case there is no claim that the bible is literally inspired by god. when the common man makes the claim, he means "technically". so by your definition "common lay speach" is no different from speaking technically.

In common lay speach the Bible is often call the Word of God. No doubt that it how 95% of Christians on this forum will speak of it.

The argument goes that God spoke to/through inspired authors who then composed the work under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. Thus it is the product of the hand of God (via the intermediary of the Holy Spirit) and is therefore the Word of God as if he had written the book himself.

Again, this (common lay speach) argument is that the NT is, "technically", the inspired word of god.

Even most who don't believe in the dictation theory of the scriptures will still say something pretty close to this. Now this is not the universal opinion of Christendom, but it is the most common way that it is talked about.

as far as i know the argument stated above in "common lay speach" is the "dictation theory of scriptures". i hope there is not a theory that claims that god himself spoke word for word to the writers because there is definitley not any evidence to make that claim.

Metaphorically, most certainly the Bible is the Word of God. It expresses what we understand God to be saying to his people and through them to the world at-large.

the understanding of the church is flawed. thus what it understands is flawed. god is not flawed nor are his words. so metaphorically the NT is not god's words.

Technically, no, the Bible is NOT the Word of God.

I commend you for your acceptance of truth and i hope that you will continue in this direction.

The Word of God is actually more appropriately identified as the second person of the Godhead, God the Son.

i will not currently deny your interpretation of the NT in this respect. but it is incorrect to imply that because the NT is about jesus, it is the "word of god" as well. if you say jesus is the word of god, prerogative acknowledged.

the writings labeled the NT talk about jesus, but there is no evidence to say that they are devine or inspired.

And because it contains all that is necessary for knowledge of salvation is without reference to any other message wholly sufficient to deliver God's message regarding the way of salvation,

you cannot make that claim without devine inspiration.

we will often speak of it as God's Word (i.e. for us).

as i stated above you cannot even make that argument metaphorically.

 

[kidcanman]

Of course people wrote the Bible how else could it get into book form. In the NT sometimes we know the author and sometimes it is not certain but in faith Christians accept those books as inspired by God.

Christians accept the books in faith. but nowhere do the books state that they are inspired by god. nor does jesus reference the books. nor does peter state that the books are inspired. jesus/the scriptures do not give christians the authority to decide weather or not certain writings are inspired by god. therefore christians have no devine right to accept those books as inspired by god.

How can it be otherwise? Consider the Qu'ran - who wrote that - was it Prophet Mohammed or was it God - if it was God how can you show that to be true as it is impossible to trace the work back to him and all one can do is accept it in faith just as Christians do for the Bible.

In the case of the quran, there are statements in the book that reference the book as inpired. if the statements belong in the book, and if the statements are refering to the book as we have it, then the quran makes the claim of devinity for itself.

the next step is verifying if the claim is true.

but in no section of the NT are there any claims to devinity. and so there is nothing to verify. it is christians (i.e. man) that claim the NT is inspired. so all we must verify is weather or not the church has the devine authority to make that claim.

so far no christian has been able to cite evidence for decernment.

 

[Hugo]

Christians accept the books in faith. but nowhere do the books state that they are inspired by god. nor does jesus reference the books. nor does peter state that the books are inspired. jesus/the scriptures do not give christians the authority to decide weather or not certain writings are inspired by god. therefore christians have no devine right to accept those books as inspired by god.

Hugo - everyone has to decide if the scripture is indeed God communicating and we do that by faith - I did it you have to do it. It is also a peculiar argument to say that Peter or Jesus did not say they were inspired - if that were true then In could write a book and say it was inspired and you would accept it - that is what your words imply. The fact that a book make a claim is irrelevant because one way or another it has to be tested. You may also like to consider the following as a claim for divinity:
John 12:47-49 (NIV) 49. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Accepting God is not like accepting gravity, you have no choice in the matter. It is also not true that Jesus did not reference the OT and if you would take a little trouble you will see that he did it everywhere in the Gospels.

 

[جوري]

^^ Jesus indeed was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and thus kept with their laws, it is just a wonder why Jesus followers don't?
Why they eat pigs when assuredly Jesus didn't
why they forgo circumcision when surely Jesus was
why they forgo monotheism while surely Jesus was a monotheist
why they take idols for worship while assuredly Jesus didn't
Jewish law allows for divorce, now did Jesus abolish that law?

just to name a few

all the best

 

[kidcanman]

Hugo - everyone has to decide if the scripture is indeed God communicating and we do that by faith

if a person that claims to be inspired by god (i.e. jesus/muhammad) does not say that a collection of writings is inspired by god. if the aforementioned person (jesus) does not imply that anybody else has the devine authority to claim that a collection of writings is inspired by god. and if a collection of writings does not state that it is inspired by god. then we do not have the right to "decide" that a collection of writings is inspired by god of our own accord.

there is no devine authority that implies that you should have faith that the NT is inspired. and so your faith is in man's ability to decifer. not god's words.

It is also a peculiar argument to say that Peter or Jesus did not say they were inspired - if that were true then I could write a book and say it was inspired and you would accept it - that is what your words imply.

it is exactly what i have implied/said: that men (matthew, mark etc.) composed writings; that jesus never heard of those writings; that nobody with devine authority claimed that these writings are inspired; and that nobody has the right to accept them as inspired.

The fact that a book make a claim is irrelevant because one way or another it has to be tested.

If the book makes a claim then that claim must be tested. if a book does not make a claim (if the claim is devinity) then we have no reason to think that it is devine; and no reason to test it.

You may also like to consider the following as a claim for divinity:
John 12:47-49 (NIV) 49. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

somebody wrote an account, in the NT, of jesus claiming that what he said are god's words. i don't dispute that the person heard jesus making this claim and wrote about it. nor do i dispute that what jesus said are god's words.

the person's account is not the words of god; it is only a story about jesus making a claim.

jesus said that what he said was from god. but he did not say that,"the account written about me saying what i said is from god, is from god".

It is also not true that Jesus did not reference the OT and if you would take a little trouble you will see that he did it everywhere in the Gospels.

so you refute that jesus referenced the OT but you did not mention the NT. i conclude from this that you agree with me that jesus did not reference the NT.

i noted that jesus referenced the OT and therefore one can argue that it is inspired in an earlier post.

although i did make the opposite claim in my original post; in successive posts i probably should not have used the inclusive label "bible".

 

[Supreme]

^^ Jesus indeed was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and thus kept with their laws, it is just a wonder why Jesus followers don't?
Why they eat pigs when assuredly Jesus didn't
why they forgo circumcision when surely Jesus was
why they forgo monotheism while surely Jesus was a monotheist
why they take idols for worship while assuredly Jesus didn't
Jewish law allows for divorce, now did Jesus abolish that law?

just to name a few

all the best

They were applicable exclusively for Jews. They were not meant for any other people. They were meant for Jews because they were special and God's chosen people. Now, the last verse in Matthew affirms Jesus' wishes to spread the Word to all peoples, regardless of Gentile or Jew:

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

(Matthew 28:19-20)

Now, Paul expands on this idea (or devil Saul to you, whatever you like), and suggests that Christianity, although the fulfillment of Judaism, was never meant to be exclusively Jewish. Jewish law is for Jewish Christians and need not apply for Gentile Christians, as God never gave His laws to the Gentiles. To Jews, such affairs are part of their covenant to God, but to Gentiles, such affairs are meaningless, airless bits of pointlessness.

 

[جوري]

They were applicable exclusively for Jews. They were not meant for any other people. They were meant for Jews because they were special and God's chosen people. Now, the last verse in Matthew affirms Jesus' wishes to spread the Word to all peoples, regardless of Gentile or Jew:

If exclusively to the Jews, then I'd have a talk with Hugo:

Accepting God is not like accepting gravity, you have no choice in the matter. It is also not true that Jesus did not reference the OT and if you would take a little trouble you will see that he did it everywhere in the Gospels.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/I]

as I am not sure how you can reconcile how he lives, preached and worshiped with how you live preach and worship!

(Matthew 28:19-20)

Now, Paul expands on this idea (or devil Saul to you, whatever you like), and suggests that Christianity, although the fulfillment of Judaism, was never meant to be exclusively Jewish. Jewish law is for Jewish Christians and need not apply for Gentile Christians, as God never gave His laws to the Gentiles. To Jews, such affairs are part of their covenant to God, but to Gentiles, such affairs are meaningless, airless bits of pointlessness.

Ah another passage you must reconcile with your own bible as well whose word is more authoritative man/god or self-professed prophet saul? :
<< Matthew 15:24 >>

New International Version (©1984)
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." New Living Translation (©2007)
Then Jesus said to the woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep--the people of Israel."
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
International Standard Version (©2008)
But he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus responded, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."
King James Bible
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American King James Version
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American Standard Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Bible in Basic English
But he made answer and said, I was sent only to the wandering sheep of the house of Israel.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.
Darby Bible Translation
But he answering said, I have not been sent save to the lost sheep of Israel's house.
English Revised Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Webster's Bible Translation
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Weymouth New Testament
"I have only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," He replied.
World English Bible
But he answered, "I wasn't sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Young's Literal Translation
and he answering said, 'I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'



___________________

all the best

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

.. It would also seem logical to me that such abrogation should continues since times are always changing if that was the rationale?

as a bro already pointed out , talk about Quran will be off topic here. In short , about changing laws in different times ...well .. God sent Messengers with new laws . We ordinary people have no right to change the commands of God Almighty or challenge Him .

Jesus pbuh preached what he was ordered to preach ; he did not change / add / remove anything by his own will but he obeyed sincerely to God Almighty as all other messengers pbut did.

 

[Masuma]

Asalamu alikum! (Peace be on you!)

Brother Hugo,
Why did you only answer part of my post and left the real question or rather a challenge which I put forward? The challenge was do you have any kind of proof besides your scriptures through which you can show us that Bible is the true word of God?

But you didn't meet this challenge. Why?

On the other hand you again turned on Quran quoting that there are many hadith which tells us about the missing verses!
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]this is the same for the Qu'ran, you have what is there and as you must know there are numerous hadith that talk about missing verses.

[/FONT]
This is the same technique you are using to I don't know- maybe to divert my attention to something else!

Brother, I am aware of the simple fact that this discussion is of course going to turn bitter and bitter! This is what I don't want to happen.:hmm: I thought to have a nice and friendly discussion with you about the scriptures but I can see that that won't be possible without giving rise to enmity between us.

If you want to stick to these dogmas of Christianity without demanding any proof, then your choice. But I am the one who sticks to something only if I have sufficient proof about its veracity.

[FONT=&quot]Hugo - it is a matter of faith, we have what we have and to me it is complete. If something is missing there is no way anyone can know what it was -

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Aha! So you agree that you don't have any proof besides your scriptures through which you can show us that Bible is the word of God?

Well, let me tell you this. In this age of science and technology, what else can be a bigger test then the test of science!

If the teachings of Bible are not in contradiction to the established laws of science then one can take it to be the word of God. But if the teachings of Bible contradicts science laws then obviously, no one is stupid enough to claim Bible to be the true word of God!

God as He has created this whole universe must be knowing the simple laws of science and mathematics, don't you think?

But brother, do you know that there are thousands of scientific errors and mathematical contradictions in Bible?!!!

Ever heard of Dr. Zakir Naik? He is a student of comparative religions and in one of his debate, he has responded to a Christian scholar, pointing out these thousands of errors to him. And the Christian scholar was not able to refute even one of his points!

I don't know if this debate is there on youtube but I have it with me in a written format. If you want to see these scientific errors in Bible, then I can give you the link-

Brother think about it! Can it be possible for God to not know even the basic science laws which we have read in primary? Nauzbillah! Or isn't it even more ABSURD that the God make so many mathematical mistakes in the Holy Scriptures which He is sending forward for the whole of humanity>? Nauzbillah!

Bible has so badly failed this simple test. On the other hand, you will find not even a single error in the Holy Quran. Why? Because it is the true word of Allah!

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In terms of proof another thread has been set up so go there to pursue this line.[/FONT]

Where? Can you please give the link?
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For my own part I don't think there is proof in any scientific sense and faith does not demand it.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Let me correct you here. BLIND FAITH does not demand any proof but True faith does! If you want me to believe in something, why should I believe in it unless I have sufficient proof about it's veracity! And please don't put forward this as a proof that Bible calls itself to be true word of God- This is just no proof at all.

Suppose if I write a book and keeps repeating in it that this book is from Allah- will you then believe in it too? Because you said that faith doesn't demand any proof!:shade:
[/FONT]



I think you should read this post again. A lovely and logical thing said by a brother.:statisfie

... it is possible that among the many different claimants that a claim may indeed be true. But unless a religion is able to show that truth apart from their own text and experience and have it verified in the public forum, the veracity of any of our claims remains simply an article of faith, and unprovable except to those who already accept it as and need no such proof.

 

[Masuma]

A Request to brother Hugo

Asalamu Alikum! (May peace be on you!)

Brother Hugo,
I think that by keeping this discussion going on for a long time will serve us no purpose except that it will give rise to hatred.

So why don't we come to a way which is acceptable to both of us?

Our Lord guides us in the Quran to come to the common terms.

So why don't we keep our differences aside and come to those terms which are acceptable to both of us and which are in your scripture and my scripture too?

Do you agree?

You think that Bible is the true word of God then okay, you may consider it as. I think that Quran is the true word of God whereas a Hindu might say that Vedas or Baghwatgittas are the true word of God. Everyone claims their Scriptures to be the true word of God. Right?

So why don't we all come to those similarities which your religion teaches and mine too?

What is the first similarity? It is that there is no god but Allah! We only worship Him and associate no partners with Him.

All the religious scriptures teach you this! For references, you can see Dr. Zakir Naik's public lecture "Similarities between Islam and Christianity".
Check out the videos on youtube. Many of his good lectures are there although some are incomplete. similarities between Islam and Christianity.

There he quotes FROM the Bible, the verses which speak about Allah as the true Creator! All the verses from your own Bible, the scripture you consider holy- so won't you then believe in what your Bible says?

Is there any kind of harm to come to common terms? :hmm:

I don't think so. The differences we can discuss latter, but let us agree to what is common in all religious scriptures!!! It is the most logical and friendly way!

 

[Hugo]

Why did you only answer part of my post and left the real question or rather a challenge which I put forward? The challenge was do you have any kind of proof besides your scriptures through which you can show us that Bible is the true word of God? But you didn't meet this challenge. Why?
Hugo - but I did, I accept the scriptures in faith, I have read them and I trust them. I cannot see any other way and I might here cite Abraham who had no scriptures at all yet both you and I accept that he heard God's call. What you don't seem to realise is that whatever so called proof you use will involve God and the idea of revalation and so logically they always lead in strict logical terms to a fallacy. For example, suppose I say "he lied because he's possessed by demons"; this could be the correct explanation of his lying but there is no way to check it. You can cite evidence that he is twitching or moaning but it would not be evidence for supernatural forces are in control because there are many other possible explanations. In simple terms it is not possible to show if the statement is true or false so it is a fallacy as far as an argument goes for lying.

On the other hand you again turned on Quran quoting that there are many hadith which tells us about the missing verses!
This is the same technique you are using to I don't know- maybe to divert my attention to something else!
Hugo - it is nothing of the sort, I am simply pointing out a similarity to give some sort of balance so you can look at your own faith rationally.

Brother, I am aware of the simple fact that this discussion is of course going to turn bitter and bitter! This is what I don't want to happen. I thought to have a nice and friendly discussion with you about the scriptures but I can see that that won't be possible without giving rise to enmity between us.
Hugo - why would you say that? I have not as far as I know insulted you or Islam and here we simply exchange viewpoints and hopefully learn from each other. Because we might not agree does not mean there has to be bitterness - well not from me anyway.

If you want to stick to these dogmas of Christianity without demanding any proof, then your choice. But I am the one who sticks to something only if I have sufficient proof about its veracity.
Hugo - well best wishes but you may have a little trouble in life if you want proof for everything

Aha! So you agree that you don't have any proof besides your scriptures through which you can show us that Bible is the word of God? Well, let me tell you this. In this age of science and technology,what else can be a bigger test then the test of science!
Hugo - you will have to explain this as I have no clear idea what you mean and of course it would also mean that in the time of the Prophet they did not have these proofs yet believed so they are not needed are they?

If the teachings of Bible are not in contradiction to the established laws of science then one can take it to be the word of God. But if the teachings of Bible contradicts science laws then obviously, no one is stupid enough to claim Bible to be the true word of God!
Hugo - Darwin's origin of the Species or evolution does not contradict science so it must be the word of God according to your argument.

God as He has created this whole universe must be knowing the simple laws of science and mathematics, don't you think? But brother, do you know that there are thousands of scientific errors and mathematical contradictions in Bible?
[SIZE="2"[B]]Hugo[/B] - let's here one or two of them. I have just come from a lecture given by a person with a double PhD on cosmology and God and he did not mention any of these supposed contradictions [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

Ever heard of Dr. Zakir Naik? He is a student of comparative religions and in one of his debate, he has responded to a Christian scholar, pointing out these thousands of errors to him. And the Christian scholar was not able to refute even one of his points!
[COLOR="Black"]Hugo - yes I know about him, does you logic tell you that if one scholar cannot refute then no one can? Does Dr Naik know everything, is he omnipotent in every field? Did you check out (since you always want proof) Dr Naik's competence in these 1,000s of areas? This is just hearsay, give us one of Dr Naik's examples.

I don't know if this debate is there on youtube but I have it with me in a written format. If you want to see these scientific errors in Bible, then I can give you the link.

Hugo - do that, let's have a look at some of them
Brother think about it! Can it be possible for God to not know even the basic science laws which we have read in primary? Nauzbillah! Or isn't it even more ABSURD that the God make so many mathematical mistakes in the Holy Scriptures which He is sending forward for the whole of humanity>? Nauzbillah!
Hugo - just give examples not rhetoric

Bible has so badly failed this simple test. On the other hand, you will find not even a single error in the Holy Quran. Why? Because it is the true word of Allah!
Hugo - suppose I find this 'single error' will you give up Islam?

Let me correct you here. BLIND FAITH does not demand any proof but True faith does! If you want me to believe in something, why should I believe in it unless I have sufficient proof about it's veracity! And please don't put forward this as a proof that Bible calls itself to be true word of God- This is just no proof at all.
Hugo - if one has proof then no faith is required, we don't have to have faith in Gravity because we know it will be the same tomorrow as it is today. One might also say that YOU have no proof about what will happen tomorrow in your life so do you give up today? For all you know I might be a computer playing a game with you, teasing you, testing you. Let me give an example, it is said that the heart of Prophet Mohammed was removed and washed with snow - do you have proof of that or do you reject is because as you have said you don't believe it without proof?

Suppose if I write a book and keeps repeating in it that this book is from Allah - will you then believe in it too? Because you said that faith doesn't demand any proof!

- I would read it first to see if I can recognise it as God speaking and if others also see it that way. I cannot see there can be other proofs as I pointed out earlier, I cannot check up with God can I, I cannot go to him and say "is this yours'?

 

[Hugo]

Re: A Request to brother Hugo

I think that by keeping this discussion going on for a long time will serve us no purpose except that it will give rise to hatred.

Hugo - can you explain why this is so? All I am doing is suggesting that what has been said by some is either not correct or needs qualification. The whole point of these boards is to discuss not simply hear one side of any story. Surely, you want authentic information or5 are you willing to accet anything as long as it follows a party line? I read what you say and I don't find my self hating you or anyone just because I don't agree or you don't agree with me - to do that would be silly and distructive

So why don't we come to a way which is acceptable to both of us? Our Lord guides us in the Quran to come to the common terms. So why don't we keep our differences aside and come to those terms which are acceptable to both of us and which are in your scripture and my scripture too? Do you agree?

Hugo - yes its good to see where we agree but what has been written here often is not correct and that is I think you will agree an issue.

What is the first similarity? It is that there is no god but Allah! We only worship Him and associate no partners with Him. All the religious scriptures teach you this! There he quotes FROM the Bible, the verses which speak about Allah as the true Creator! All the verses from your own Bible, the scripture you consider holy- so won't you then believe in what your Bible says? Is there any kind of harm to come to common terms? :hmm:

I don't think so. The differences we can discuss latter, but let us agree to what is common in all religious scriptures!!! It is the most logical and friendly way!

This is fine but I don't think anywhere I have said anything that is more than an attempt to correct or question what has been said by others. It is also generally agreed that when we differ there is much more to be explored and learned than when we agree and if we do that with respect for each other the rewards are great

The whole point in learning is to take the attitude:

Ralph Waldo Emerson (American Poet and Lecturer) said: “Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail”.

Jacob Bronowski - (broadcasting and Teacher) It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to hero-worship what is known but to question it

 

[Hugo]

^^ Jesus indeed was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and thus kept with their laws, it is just a wonder why Jesus followers don't?
Why they eat pigs when assuredly Jesus didn't
why they forgo circumcision when surely Jesus was
why they forgo monotheism while surely Jesus was a monotheist
why they take idols for worship while assuredly Jesus didn't
Jewish law allows for divorce, now did Jesus abolish that law?

This is an interesting question but I think it is easily answered.

Circumcision and the Law - in the Laws as given to Moses there are supposed to be 613 of them and broadly they cover morality, ritual and dietary prescriptions. But these laws were given perhaps 3,000-4000 years ago and it is obvious that many of the circumstances or institutions to which they applied no longer exit so the relevant law is defunct. This is not unlike the abrogation we find in Islam. No one would I think dispute the moral laws as exemplified by the 10 commandments but in the other two areas then it is possible to set them aside. For example, there are a lot of laws about sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem but that no longer exits and so that law cannot be obeyed but they may be actioned in a spiritual sense.

With regard to circumcision it was not invented by the Jews but was widely practised by many civilisations at and after the time of Abraham. In Jewish terms it was chosen by God as a sign of a covenant relationship (Genesis 17:11) and this covenant was accompanied by the law. So Jews had both privileged (they were chosen) and responsibility (they were given the Law). However, the OT speaks about circumcision of the heart as being the true circumcision - we read for example:

Deuteronomy 30:6 - The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

Jeremiah 4:4 - Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done— burn with no one to quench it.

This message is carried into the NT and is notably found in Romans chapters 1 to 3. What this is saying is that it is no good having an outward symbol or having the law as a possession unless it make a difference, unless it spurs you to action for God.
​

Monotheism - no Christian would deny it so I cannot see any case to answer there.

Idols - I don't know with any certainty what this is referring to so cannot offer a comment. Is this about religious icons or tombs etc?

Divorce - I cannot quite see what the issue is here as one supposes that Jesus was making the law more stringent not taking it away, making it more difficult to keep not making it simpler.

 

[Supreme]

I cannot quite see what the issue is here as one supposes that Jesus was making the law more stringent not taking it away, making it more difficult to keep not making it simpler.

I like the view of the Quakers. They believe a marriage dies when the love dies, not when a person dies, so they allow divorce on grounds on dead love.

 

[جوري]

This is an interesting question but I think it is easily answered.

Circumcision and the Law - in the Laws as given to Moses there are supposed to be 613 of them and broadly they cover morality, ritual and dietary prescriptions. But these laws were given perhaps 3,000-4000 years ago and it is obvious that many of the circumstances or institutions to which they applied no longer exit so the relevant law is defunct. This is not unlike the abrogation we find in Islam. No one would I think dispute the moral laws as exemplified by the 10 commandments but in the other two areas then it is possible to set them aside. For example, there are a lot of laws about sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem but that no longer exits and so that law cannot be obeyed but they may be actioned in a spiritual sense.

With regard to circumcision it was not invented by the Jews but was widely practised by many civilisations at and after the time of Abraham. In Jewish terms it was chosen by God as a sign of a covenant relationship (Genesis 17:11) and this covenant was accompanied by the law. So Jews had both privileged (they were chosen) and responsibility (they were given the Law). However, the OT speaks about circumcision of the heart as being the true circumcision - we read for example:

Deuteronomy 30:6 - The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

Jeremiah 4:4 - Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done— burn with no one to quench it.

This message is carried into the NT and is notably found in Romans chapters 1 to 3. What this is saying is that it is no good having an outward symbol or having the law as a possession unless it make a difference, unless it spurs you to action for God.​

Why would God change his mind? Jesus was supposed to enforce the laws to get those who strayed back on them not abrogate them all together.. It isn't whether this was practiced before or after, first and foremost the religion of God was one and so where his laws even before Abraham (P) all messengers came with the same message and the tenets have remained.. charity, prayer, fast, honesty, prohibitions etc. Abraham (p) didn't bring anything new, just that he was an island unto himself as those before him perished with the message, it was renewed with him.
Therein is a major difference between Islam and Christianity.. we literally believe that all the messengers came to enforce the same message and the same laws with minor variations but not do away with them all together..
The universe is built around seven themes I assure you it doesn't matter how 'modern' we get, life will revolve around the same earthly laws..
a girl falling in love today is no different than a girl falling in love 5000 yrs ago even if fashions have changed.. A man using usury to swindle others out of their land today is no different than a man 6000 years ago. A man coveting his neighbor's wife today is no different than a man coveting 5000 yrs ago. A man who is bigoted toward a black person today, tying him to the back of his car and driving 20 miles until he is skinned today as happened a little over a decade ago is no different than a man bigoted toward a slave 5000 years ago. A man envious and planning to murder his brother today for a stretch of property is no different than a man murdering his brother since the beginning of time for similar reason.. that is why the expression 'as old as sin' exists.. Modern life hasn't changed the basic things about us. There is no reason to think that the law of man supersedes the law of God..

Monotheism - no Christian would deny it so I cannot see any case to answer there.

But that isn't how non-christians see it.. none of us can wrap around the concept of three gods into one. And it really will remain a major Achilles for Christianity.

Idols - I don't know with any certainty what this is referring to so cannot offer a comment. Is this about religious icons or tombs etc?

The icons that jesus didn't take, but are taken by those who allege to follow Jesus .. like this

Jesus didn't do this.. you know what I find even most insulting here, is that she has her head covered yet wearing see through clothes, supposedly while kneeling before God.. I don't understand.. do we love God and worship him on his own terms or ours?

Divorce - I cannot quite see what the issue is here as one supposes that Jesus was making the law more stringent not taking it away, making it more difficult to keep not making it simpler.

Yes, but don't you see that this is a disaster? Divorce by no means is loved by God, however it is very necessary at times, why should a woman or a man in an abusive relationship be made to suffer for a life time with no glimmer of hope that they can have a normal life with a compatible partner.. This law isn't made so we can fornicate with whomever whenever, rather as a lifeline and surprisingly the divorce rate really are highest amongst westerners who (if they were christian) should uphold this law, should technically endure longer in marriages..

Thing is we can't do away with this law or that law because we find it a faux pas or because perez hilton would mouth us off as bigots.. Really God gave us the free will and the choice to live by his commandments or to 'modernize ourselves' under some sort of humanist threat of low IQ or stupidity or whatever else is used to bully people into a new world order.. ..

my two cents..

peace

 

[kidcanman]

we have strayed from the path of the thread

 

[Grace Seeker]

^^ Jesus indeed was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and thus kept with their laws, it is just a wonder why Jesus followers don't?
Why they eat pigs when assuredly Jesus didn't
why they forgo circumcision when surely Jesus was
why they forgo monotheism while surely Jesus was a monotheist
why they take idols for worship while assuredly Jesus didn't
Jewish law allows for divorce, now did Jesus abolish that law?

just to name a few

all the best

This is simple. Jesus was a Jew and as such participated in the covenant that God made with Jews. But Jesus also very specifically stated that he was establishing a new covenant. This new covenant was not subservient to the old covenant and it was for all people not just those who were participants in the old covenant. Thus none, accept those who are part of the old covenant, are bound by any of the terms of the old covenant. Rather we are bound by the new covenant's terms which do NOT include any of the items you listed, except that I would submit it still remains monotheisitic.

Very early on in the life of the Church they wrestled with the question as to whether those who were coming to faith in Jesus were required to also join not Old Covenant to be participants in the New Covenant, and the answer to that question was an unequivocal "NO!" So, we don't put the burden of the old covenant on anyone any more.

There are some things held in common by both covenants, but restrictions on eating pork (or shellfish which is also against Jewish dietary laws) and the practice of circumcision were expressly excluded from the New Covenant.