Question to Christians, explain please?

[Grace Seeker]

Woodrow, I think your point about how even Islam understands that there were different revelations for different people at different times in human history is helpful here. While it is not an exact parallel to the way that Christians view the Old Testament, it is closely analagous. So, if Muslims can accept that the "original" Injil (refering to it as a Muslim would), even if to be found today would not be binding on them as the Qur'an supplants it, the surely it should be that hard to make the transfer in thought that Christians might retain the Old Testament and yet live their lives based not as much on it as on the revelation of God as set forth in the New Testament.

If I can get a sense that people can at least grasp this basic idea which I think is similar, even if not identical, to the Muslim treatment of the messages sent to Allah's prophets before Muhammad, I would then try to explain how and why it is that Christians still maintain the acceptance of the Old Testament as a whole without necessarily accepting each individual part of it. But let's get this first simple concept down before moving on to other more complex ideas.

 

[جوري]

Skye, while I may not be among them, there are many Christians who truly in their hearts believe that Islam is a pagan religion, and that Muhammad (pbuh) behaved in immoral ways. They have a variety of reasons. If they were to present them in a thread that was asking for Muslims to explain their faith without actually engaging the content of the questions being asked, would you see that as respectful or as simply contentious behavior?

I am aware of the lies christians like to spread.. It is inconsequential however!

I can respect that you do view Christianity as just an offshoot of paganism; each person is entitled to their own view of any religion. But I don't respect that you present that view as if it is sufficient in itself to answer the question being asked. That's what is disrespectful about your posting.

I think it is more than sufficient to explain Christianity, as Einstein stated, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Your post, regarding the pagan nature of Christianity, has nothing to do with the actual issue being discussed with regard to how Christians make use of what is termed the Old Testament. Hence, though I trust you don't intend it this way, it comes across as little more than just one more verbal attack against Christianity and not at all an attempt to either understand it (which you have previously stated you have no desire to do) nor to deal with the issue in question. The result is that you produce tangents to the thread that lead to unproductive discussions of unrelated issues. That, IMO, is not just disrespectful to Christianity -- you're a Muslim, what do you care -- but also disrespectful to the individuals who are seriously searching for answers to their questions that get lost in the tangents your posts produce. And since most of thoe questions come from your fellow Muslims, can you see how you are actually disrepecting your own brothers and sisters in Islam?

The reason that Jews don't view the NT as a continuum of their books, is because it is simply isn't a monotheistic religion, as such I believe I have provided the simplest and most correct answer, and rather think if most folks approached the topic of Christianity at the very fulcrum that holds it together, they'd come to the same conclusion and we can save ourselves from wasted time and web-space, as that is naturally the logical end conclusion.. and No I don't see it as disrespectful, rather rendered a great service!

I would love to talk about how Christians view the Tanakh, and the place it has in the Christian faith. Both it's use and its non-use. How it contains both ritual and ceremonial laws that Christians on the whole don't feel they are compelled to observe, and a moral law that Christians generally do feel is applicable to not only them but all persons. But you've moved us from that discussion to one of the origins of Christianity. And yet, you haven't said why it is a pagan religion. Only that in your view it is nothing more than Greek mythology. Now, I suspect this is because you completely misunderstand Paul's arguments that are steeped fully in the Torah, and anything but Greek in nature. But, if I take the time to respond to this tangent accusation you've made that Christianity is a pagan religion, then I'm likely to leave unaddressed the real issue about how Christians whether those passages that the OP cited are pertinent to the Christian? How we do understand them? In what way they might have been intially understood and if they are understood differently today, then how and why?

I think dressing up the topic with massive logorrhea won't help matters any, and I have told you so as much, if your most basic tenet is at odds with monotheism and common sense and falls very short of logical coherence, nothing else from that point on matters. If we are starting the topic about an impossibility then anything built upon that from that point onward really doesn't matter.. There is no difference at this stage between Hindu paganism from christian paganism, they furnish their houses in cow dung, you eat the body of christ and drink his blood, they have a little elephant god, you have a dying god, they have festivals, and your borrow your festivals (how is that for originality) There is nothing to understand or not understand about paulian Christianity, if you need a committee of theologians to explain the most basic tenet then in all likelihood it is faulty.. We are not talking complex jurisprudence, we are talking the truth that should be understood by the simplest minds to the most complex.. if you are going to waste everyone's time on dying self beseeching, self immolating, self abrogating gods then frankly we aren't starting from the same platform!

And, if you respect your fellow LI members and their posts, it is my hope you'll join us in that discussion rather than engage in ad hominem arguments against the Christian faith such as you did in your response to Hugo --"you subscribe to a faith where prophets sleep with their daughters" --, or unsubstantiated expressions of personal opinion such as you did in your response to Supreme -- "Christianity by and large appears to be nothing but Greek mythology."

You find adhoms in calling it like it is, do you not worship a man named Jesus? and take his commandments from the mouth of a charlatan who as per you never physically met him named Paul?..

My response was very apropos for a guy who thinks handing me an orientalist book to explain away Islam as the source of Islamic knowledge.. at least I grant you the courtesy to explain your own beliefs and not through third parties before I post my objections!


all the best

 

[Eric H]

Blessings and peace be with you all,

We are all created by the same wonderful God, we share Abraham, Moses and Jesus, somehow this makes us all brothers and sisters together, despite all our differences.

It is threads like this, which give us the opportunity to be kind towards each other, we do have that choice. In order to be at peace with ourselves, it is necessary to be at peace with each other. Nothing bad should stand in the way of finding that inner peace that transcends all understanding.

4Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

In the spirit of praying for an inner peace that transcends all understanding

Eric

 

[Ramadhan]

No one has yet answered my questions:

1. When did christians start to believe/treat that old testaments is for historical references only?
2. When did christian start to assert that only laws in the NT are applicable?
3. Did Jesus pbuh ever proclaim that the laws in the OT no longer applicable?
4. Did Jesus pbuh ever sanction the laws in the NT?

 

[Grace Seeker]

No one has yet answered my questions:

1. When did christians start to believe/treat that old testaments is for historical references only?
2. When did christian start to assert that only laws in the NT are applicable?
3. Did Jesus pbuh ever proclaim that the laws in the OT no longer applicable?
4. Did Jesus pbuh ever sanction the laws in the NT?

Naidamar, did you see my response to Woodrow's post?

Woodrow, I think your point about how even Islam understands that there were different revelations for different people at different times in human history is helpful here. While it is not an exact parallel to the way that Christians view the Old Testament, it is closely analagous. So, if Muslims can accept that the "original" Injil (refering to it as a Muslim would), even if to be found today would not be binding on them as the Qur'an supplants it, the surely it should be that hard to make the transfer in thought that Christians might retain the Old Testament and yet live their lives based not as much on it as on the revelation of God as set forth in the New Testament.

If I can get a sense that people can at least grasp this basic idea which I think is similar, even if not identical, to the Muslim treatment of the messages sent to Allah's prophets before Muhammad, I would then try to explain how and why it is that Christians still maintain the acceptance of the Old Testament as a whole without necessarily accepting each individual part of it. But let's get this first simple concept down before moving on to other more complex ideas.

It is important that you can see that despite our different theologies, the philosophical approaches of Christianity and Islam to that which went before them is not all that different. Of course, those theological differences are HUGE, and they impact the way we are going to view your questions.

For instance, I disagree with the pre-supposition to you first two questions:
1. When did christians start to believe/treat that old testaments is for historical references only?
2. When did christian start to assert that only laws in the NT are applicable?

We don't believe that the Old Testament is for historical reference only, nor do we assert that only lawas in the NT are applicable.

But we also distinguish between the ceremonial laws that were designed specifically for the Jews and those that God has established for all people. And so, since the OT contains both, we would hold that it is a mistake to universally either apply or reject all OT law and that one must instead discern which were intended by God only for the speicific people at a specific time. As I understand Islam's theory that Allah provided for a series of prophets who brought temporal revelation to specific people groups at various times in human history, the Christian understanding of the temporal application of Jewish ceremonial law would be much the same. On the other hand, just as Islam believes that even though there were various prophets for various groups of people, that all of the prophets brought a message of Islam, meaning that one is to submit to Allah as being the paramount and overriding principle of all religion, even all life. So, too, Christians hold that from the beginning God has been making revelation of universal priniciples of moral law that apply to all people be they Jewish or not, and that this moral law, is every bit as applicable as ever, and not just upon Jews but all persons. But because both the ceremonial law and the moral law are found comingled in the same revelation, one must be careful not to erroneously say that we found this law in the OT and because it is in the OT is therefore to be treated like all other laws found in the OT. For one cannot say that it is all valid or all invalid. One must discern that which is always valid from that which was never applicable to anyone other than Jews, and one does that by noting whether the specific law you speak of is a part of God's moral law or ceremonial law. One answer does not fit all, and never has.

3. Did Jesus pbuh ever proclaim that the laws in the OT no longer applicable?

Jesus said: ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). Some people think that this is Jesus saying that the Law as revealed in the OT is to remain in full force. I respectfully disagree. While such would be a simple reading of what Jesus said, I think it would also be an illustration of what Skye referenced above when she quoted Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." An interpretation that Jesus is saying the full weight of the Jewish set of 612 laws is to be applied across the board to all who follow him too simple.

First, one must ask the question, What "LAW" is Jesus referring to? I want to suggest to you that what Jesus is referencing is NOT the 612 laws that were binding on a Jew of his day at all. And to think that Jesus was making them binding on his disciples when he himself was noted for breaking them (for instance Jesus is accused by his contemporaries of being a lawbreaker for both healing and harvesting on the Sabbath) is just too simple of a view of this verse. Rather, I think Jesus is saying to those that accuse him of abolishing the law (by his acts of actually breaking some of the specific commands of the ceremonial law), that he has a much larger (less simple) view of the law in mind. And that he has not come to abolish it (that larger law), but to fulfill it. And when he makes that statement, I believe Jesus has intentionally change the meaning of which Law it is that he is referencing. For the Jews not only had there 612 laws, but they also operated with a much larger concept of law that was the Torah. Now, admittedly, some lesser minds in Judaism viewed the keeping of Torah as the keeping of those 612 specific laws, but Jesus comment reveals a he is talking about the larger concept of Torah that was also known. By that larger concept, the keeping of Torah involved far more than merely adhering to the sum total of each of those specific laws that were found in the Torah. It involved a life that was given over to God's purposes. In other words, true Torah was not about individual acts, but overall lifestyle and direction and Jesus is certainly intent on fulfilling God's purposes with his life.

That is what this passage is really referring to. It's still a simple concept, that one keeps the law of God not by doing the things that are specified in the law, but by giving one's life over to God's purposes and direction. And Jesus fleshes this out in the context of the sermon in which the verse I quoted earlier is found. In his sermon, Jesus notes that true Torah lifestyle is not just found in keeping the law which says do not murder, but that behind the crime of murder is a heart that is not directed toward God. For, Jesus goes on, to say to one's brother "Raca" is on par with committing murder, and likewise not only are we not to committ adultery, but we aren't to be lusting in our hearts either. It is not enough to outwardly keep the specific individual laws, if one's moral character is not in keeping with the righteousness of God. Conversely, by Jesus' own behavior in harversting and healing on the Sabbath (understood as a violation of the law to keep the Sabbath) he shows that a heart directed to God is what it means to truly keep Torah, Torah is not fulfilled in the observance of the specific regulations.

By just strictly observing the law without getting at it's heart, a law designed to lead the observant Jew to have the same heart for the world that Yahweh had, the Jews were actually failing to keep Torah. Jesus came however, not keeping all of those laws and yet to fulfill the Torah. Those who follow Jesus do so by looking beyond the 612 individual laws to the heart of the matter which is to have a heart directed to following and submitting to God in all things in life, not just 612 things.


4. Did Jesus pbuh ever sanction the laws in the NT?

"Sanction"? No. Jesus never made a formal statement approving a law that another person put forth. But then, no one other than Jesus ever proposed a "law" in the New Testament.

Now, if you had asked if Jesus ever himself set forth any laws in the NT, the answer would be unequivocably YES.

John 15

9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other.

This is the only law that Jesus gives us. But you will find that Jesus does provide an interesting interpretation of that law which was the heart of Jewish teaching. If you're at all familiar with the NT, you will recognize it in the following passage:

Matthew 22

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

First I find it interesting, that when Jesus is asked about the greatest commandment, that what he cites does NOT come from the Decalogue (a.k.a, the Ten Commandments). Rather he quotes from Deuteronomy (meaning, second law) "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). This is the Shema. The Shema was the first prayer that Jewish children were taught to say. It is also the quintessential expression of the most fundamental belief and commitment of Judaism. It expresses that YHWH alone, and none other, is Israel's God. Israel is chosen by God and Israel is to love God -- with heart, and soul, and strength. In essence, the Shema outlines a Torah lifestyle for if we were to have continued beyond the small passage that Jesus quoted to include the whole prayer it would have go on to say:

Deuteronomy 6

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

This Torah lifestyle that the Shema outlines is one that will lead to spiritual formation in the life of the individual who memorizes, recites, instructs, and writes out the Torah and wears the tzitzit to remind themselves of Torah. It would not be wrong to say that this is the central creed of Judaism: Love God by living Torah. But what we need to note is that Jesus adds to it. It is not enough, in Jesus' view, to live Torah by loving God. Jesus takes another command of Judaism and makes it central to what it means to live Torah as well. And so, Jesus in giving THE (one) greatest command, includes alongside the command to love God, the Levitical command to love one's neighbor as one's self -- based on Leviticus 19:18, "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

In doing so, I believe we see Jesus reshaping what it means to belong to God. It is no longer enough to simply "love God." Now, the person who truly lives Torah not only loves God, but loves others. This type of love is at the core of what it means to live a godly life. For Jesus this way of living summarizes all that was written in the Law and by the Prophets. Follow this and one fulfills the law; keep all the rest of it to the tiniest detail and miss this part and you've done away with what the law was really there to point you to in life.

 

[Supreme]

I am aware of the lies christians like to spread.. It is inconsequential however!

And then the pot called the kettle black, and everything was dandy!

The reason that Jews don't view the NT as a continuum of their books, is because it is simply isn't a monotheistic religion, as such I believe I have provided the simplest and most correct answer, and rather think if most folks approached the topic of Christianity at the very fulcrum that holds it together, they'd come to the same conclusion and we can save ourselves from wasted time and web-space, as that is naturally the logical end conclusion.. and No I don't see it as disrespectful, rather rendered a great service

Christianity is very much so a monotheistic religion. Muhammed seemed to think so, as does the Allah featured in the very book you revere. Indeed, it seems the only person at odds with that fact is yourself, although I've never found you particularly capable of grasping facts or ideas in the first place...

(This is pretty basic stuff.)

Naturally, every religion has a bit of truth in it, however Christianity by and large appears to be nothing but Greek mythology with a few different characters, taken down a few notches to appeal to the masses.

This is odd. As someone who has studied Greek mythology as part of my Classical Civilisation AS, I never came to such a conclusion. Remind me Gossamer, which story(ies) does Christianity *borrow* from? Aphrodite? Hercules?
Zeus? Apollo? I mean, obviously your reasoned and perfectly *valid* judgement has to be correct, I only need you to give specific references to these myths that Christianity imitates and I'm on my way to Buddhism!

think dressing up the topic with massive logorrhea won't help matters any, and I have told you so as much, if your most basic tenet is at odds with monotheism and common sense and falls very short of logical coherence, nothing else from that point on matters

You will learn by degrees, Gossamer, that it is your logical comprehension and yours alone that seems incapable of grasping the basic fundamentals of Christianity, and indeed monotheism. Monotheism does not necessarily have to reflect a lone old, small deity sitting by himself and sending prophets every few thousand years on the off chance it might convince people of His existence. Islam is not the first monotheist religion, and neither is it the first monotheist one that preaches that God is only one object incapable of doing anything other than creating Earth and sending down a book.

we are starting the topic about an impossibility then anything built upon that from that point onward really doesn't matter.. There is no difference at this stage between Hindu paganism from christian paganism, they furnish their houses in cow dung, you eat the body of christ and drink his blood, they have a little elephant god, you have a dying god, they have festivals, and your borrow your festivals (how is that for originality) There is nothing to understand or not understand about paulian Christianity, if you need a committee of theologians to explain the most basic tenet then in all likelihood it is faulty.. We are not talking complex jurisprudence, we are talking the truth that should be understood by the simplest minds to the most complex.. if you are going to waste everyone's time on dying self beseeching, self immolating, self abrogating gods then frankly we aren't starting from the same platform!

I do think you need to research the word paganism, although seeing as you have proven yourself unable to relate to other topics you rave on about, let me save you the hassle:

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic")[1] is a blanket term used to refer to various polytheistic, non Abrahamic religious traditions. Its exact definition may vary:[2] It is primarily used in a historical context, referring to Greco-Roman polytheism as well as the polytheistic traditions of Europe before Christianization. In a wider sense, extended to contemporary religions, it includes most of the Eastern religions, and the indigenous traditions of the Americas, Central Asia and Africa, as well as non-Abrahamic folk religion in general. More narrow definitions will not include any of the world religions and restrict the term to local or rural currents not organized as civil religions. Characteristic of pagan traditions is the absence of proselytism and the presence of a living mythology which explains religious practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

Read! Learn! If it is possible, understand! This stuff isn't hard; the intricate nature of redox equilibrium is (relatively) hard. Something that barely takes a quick search on Wikipedia shouldn't be too tough!

You find adhoms in calling it like it is, do you not worship a man named Jesus? and take his commandments from the mouth of a charlatan who as per you never physically met him named Paul?..

Yes and yes (although Paul wasn't a charlatan: you may want to look words up yourself before repeating what you've already heard beforehand), and it apparantly seems that you have the problem with that. Me? I'll just continue to worship a man and follow the commandments of Paul, until somebody convinces me otherwise!

 

[جوري]

And then the pot called the kettle black, and everything was dandy!

Really? It is a lie that you worship a middle eastern mangod?

Christianity is very much so a monotheistic religion. Muhammed seemed to think so, as does the Allah featured in the very book you revere. Indeed, it seems the only person at odds with that fact is yourself, although I've never found you particularly capable of grasping facts or ideas in the first place...

(This is pretty basic stuff.)

Christianity of ahel al-kahf, has nothing to do with Christianity as you subscribe to it today!

This is odd. As someone who has studied Greek mythology as part of my Classical Civilisation AS, I never came to such a conclusion. Remind me Gossamer, which story(ies) does Christianity *borrow* from? Aphrodite? Hercules?
Zeus? Apollo? I mean, obviously your reasoned and perfectly *valid* judgement has to be correct, I only need you to give specific references to these myths that Christianity imitates and I'm on my way to Buddhism!

didn't zeus have an affair with a mortal woman to beget Hercules? except even there the greeks had some sense of math, and didn't allege zeus and Hercules to be one in the same..

and a few more:

​

introduces you to Christianity's origins in ancient Pagan religion. You'll discover the evidence, the scholarship, and the reasoning behind this eye opening understanding of western intellectual history.
You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the seasonal timing of the two holidays is Pagan too. Mildly interesting. Not what you'll find here. What you'll discover at POCM is that ancient cultures around the Mediterranean shared standard ideas about Gods and their powers and place in the universe—and that Christianity simply adopted those ideas and applied them to Jesus. Ancient people knew godmen did miracles. The first Christians thought Jesus was a godman, so they told stories about Jesus doing miracles. They even had Him doing the same miracles as the other godmen.
The core of Christianity—the worship of a miracle working, walking, talking godman who brings salvation—was also the core of other ancient religions that began at least a thousand years before Jesus.
Heaven, hell, prophecy, daemon possession, sacrifice, initiation by baptism, communion with God through a holy meal, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, immortality of the soul, and many other "Christian" ideas all belonged to earlier, older Pagan faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture. Along with miracle working sons of God, born of a mortal woman, they were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religion. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more.
And they had them generations—centuries— before Jesus was a twinkle in Saint Paul's eye.

Let's go see

​

http://www.pocm.info/
you should get a refund on your education?

You will learn by degrees, Gossamer, that it is your logical comprehension and yours alone that seems incapable of grasping the basic fundamentals of Christianity, and indeed monotheism. Monotheism does not necessarily have to reflect a lone old, small deity sitting by himself and sending prophets every few thousand years on the off chance it might convince people of His existence. Islam is not the first monotheist religion, and neither is it the first monotheist one that preaches that God is only one object incapable of doing anything other than creating Earth and sending down a book.

it involves that the 'small deity' send his own self to die then? I see, makes far better sense!

I do think you need to research the word paganism, although seeing as you have proven yourself unable to relate to other topics you rave on about, let me save you the hassle:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

Indeed..

Read! Learn! If it is possible, understand! This stuff isn't hard; the intricate nature of redox equilibrium is (relatively) hard. Something that barely takes a quick search on Wikipedia shouldn't be too tough!

Your quick search only affirmed the fact of the matter.. Christianity is steeped in paganism with minor references to Abrahamic faith, which is exactly what I stated in my original post!

Yes and yes (although Paul wasn't a charlatan: you may want to look words up yourself before repeating what you've already heard beforehand), and it apparantly seems that you have the problem with that. Me? I'll just continue to worship a man and follow the commandments of Paul, until somebody convinces me otherwise!

Good for you man? this concerns me how? my reply with to the OP, I don't need you to validate your beliefs to me!

all the best

 

[mahi]

Thank you all very much for the answers, and for those who also raised some interesting questions. Woodrow, thank you for the clear answer, it was very helpful. And thank you to everyone else for those answers.

And to those threatening each other trying to big up their faith over another, you are fools, for you chose the path of stupidity. Is it not clear that all you will do is argue with each for however long, waste whatever amount of time, and at the end will not have accomplished anything. This is my thread I believe, find your own.

Whilst I don't agree with some points in Christianity and urge many of our fellow Christian brothers to always consider points, such as the worship of Jesus, they are none the less our fellows.

Surah Al Baqarah (2:62): Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Surah Al Ma'ida (5:82): ....and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Surah As-Saff (61:14): O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah. As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah." Said the disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed.

And just some thoughts for consideration for fellow Christians from the Qu'ran -

4:171. O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

5:30-31. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

Again,

Surah Al Baqarah (2:62): Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.


And again thank you to everyone who answered.

 

[Ramadhan]

We don't believe that the Old Testament is for historical reference only, nor do we assert that only lawas in the NT are applicable.

well, judging by opinions offered by christians here, it seems different christians have different interpretations whether OT is only for historical references or not.
so which one is the correct opinion?

But we also distinguish between the ceremonial laws that were designed specifically for the Jews and those that God has established for all people. And so, since the OT contains both, we would hold that it is a mistake to universally either apply or reject all OT law and that one must instead discern which were intended by God only for the speicific people at a specific time.

who got to decided which laws are ceremonial and which laws are not?
Was it jesus pbuh?
paul?
early priests?
and which are the laws that applicable to early people and which laws are applicable to the rest?
Can current or future priests/pastors/popes/etc change the boundaries of those laws?
eg. homosexual acts are clearly forbidden and the wrath of god for such acts were detailed in the OT, but it seems more and more churches decided that homosexual acts are no longer sinful, judgind by the stance of some churches in the western countries.

Jesus said: ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). Some people think that this is Jesus saying that the Law as revealed in the OT is to remain in full force. I respectfully disagree.

I'm intrigued. Did the followers of Jesus pbuh still obey all the laws of the OT, or was Jesus pbuh okay that his followers not following any of the laws?
When was the first christians given the pass not to follow the OT?

 

[Grace Seeker]

well, judging by opinions offered by christians here, it seems different christians have different interpretations whether OT is only for historical references or not.
so which one is the correct opinion?

Mine, of course. Seriously, you are right that different Christians have different intepretations. I know most Mulims don't think this happens in Islam, but my observation is that it is true there as well. And what I note is that people everywhere tend to think that they are correct. Which makes sense, if they thought they were incorrect they would change their views.

who got to decided which laws are ceremonial and which laws are not?
Was it jesus pbuh?
paul?
early priests?

I believe God did. We just have to discern them.

and which are the laws that applicable to early people and which laws are applicable to the rest?
Can current or future priests/pastors/popes/etc change the boundaries of those laws?
eg. homosexual acts are clearly forbidden and the wrath of god for such acts were detailed in the OT, but it seems more and more churches decided that homosexual acts are no longer sinful, judgind by the stance of some churches in the western countries.

We don't have the ability to change what actually is and is not the absolute truth of God's commands. But we may change our undestanding of what it was that God was seeking to reveal regarding his truth to us. If this was not so, no one would ever convert from one religion to another. Nor would there be differences of interpretations within a religion.

I'm intrigued. Did the followers of Jesus pbuh still obey all the laws of the OT, or was Jesus pbuh okay that his followers not following any of the laws?
When was the first christians given the pass not to follow the OT?

The first pass was given even before there were Christians, while the disciples were still known simply as Jews and in Jesus' own presence:

Matthew 15

1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' "

10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

12Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"

13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

15Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."

16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

Matthew 12

1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

In Mark's telling of this same story, Jesus closes the discussion with the statement: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

John 5

1Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. 2Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. 3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, "Do you want to get well?"
7"Sir," the invalid replied, "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me."

8Then Jesus said to him, "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk." 9At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.
The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, 10and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat."

11But he replied, "The man who made me well said to me, 'Pick up your mat and walk.' "

Mark 7

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

 

[Grace Seeker]

Importing this question in from another thread so that it does not derail the discussion there.

Grace Seeker do you really believe that if God wanted or condoned churches and "working" as ministers and priests, why did Moses work as a sheepherder? Why was Jesus a carpenter? Why did Mohammad manage caravans and die with less than 5 items to his name? How can hundreds of billions of dollars taken away from the people, be the "kingdom of God"? Is the Kingdom of God now nothing more than a profitable organization doing a lot of business, with 70 doctrines in contradiction with each other and somehow God accepts them all? Why have any then?

Yes, I do think that God condones paid staff in churches and I do believe that includes those who serve not just as custodians, but also pastors, priests and other professional ministers. I'm not saying that it has to be the only way. Nor am I even arguing that it is necessarily the best way. But I do think it is a permissible way.

When Jesus sent out his disciples, they were to take no provision for themselves, but to depend on the generousity of those among whom they ministered to meet their needs:

Luke 10
1After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2He told them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road.
5"When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' 6If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. 7Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.

Deuteronomy 25:4 says that "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Paul cites this as part of his argument in 1 Corinthians 9 that even though he does work for his living, that he would have the right to not have to do so and to have his needs met by those amongst whom he is ministering. And in 1 Timothy 5, when discussing the assistance to be given to widows, he again turns to that passage from Deuteronomy as rationale for why elders in the church should received a double portion of this assistance.

Beyond these NT examples, we also have what God himself established with the Levites. Their job was to be priests in the temple. Because of this they had no land granted to them, but they were to be supported by the offerings brought in to the temple.


But in each of these situation you need to understand that the clergy are not those that are receiving any profit. Rather, they are receiving wages, just like the custodian that you recognize as it being valid to pay.

When you speak of profit, you are speaking the language of owners and share-holders. There are none. The Church (at least my church) is non-profit, because there is no distribution to anyone. It is either all spent for salaries of those the church employs, the building and costs associated with maintaining it, or the ministry programs that are carried out. A postive balance may be carried from one month to the next, it might even grow for a time, but eventually it is all spent in one of these areas.


Now, to the other part of your post: Is that the "kingdom of God"? No, it isn't. One should not confuse the idea that the church and the kingdom of God are the same thing. I hope I never presented them that way. The church can be about kingdom work, but it isn't synonymous (at least in its present manifestation) with the kingdom itself.

 

[freethinking]

This is not quite correct, the Greek word biblos or biblion meant a scroll of convenient size and derives from the word for papyrus or byblus or what the ancient world used to write on. Latin speaking Christians borrowed the word biblia meaning the whole collection of books OT and NT but treated it as a singular noun and from that we get the English word Bible.


This is a little muddled, if Christians speak of the Bible they mean both OT and NT but it is possible to buy just a NT and this is done more for conveniences than any other reason as it is obviously relatively small. If Jew speaks of the Bible it is usual to say Hebrew Bible meaning of course just what Christians would call the OT. Jews know what OT means but would never themselves use that term.

It is however not true that the OT is just for historical reference and Christians accept the OT and NT in their entirety as the word of God. This is obviously true because the Bible for Jesus and early Christians was the OT. No Christian that I know or have even known would take any other view

In what sense do you know this as either you accept that the Tauret, Zaboor and Injill correspond to the Biblical Torah (5 books of Moses), Injeel (Gospel), Zaboor (Book of Psalms) or you are talking about books that as far as we know no one has ever seen - please explain?



How would you recognise them if these were found?

The quotes from the book of Dueteronomy are Jewish understanding of exrending the 10 commandements that were handed to Moses and there are a number that are about dietary laws for example, however the NT does not abrogate the 10 commandments and it is clear in several places that homosexuality is an abomination including in the NT. Jesus Himself whilst on earth as a man stated that he would not change one law from the OT but at the same time saw how the current jeys in the temple were misapplying those laws.

The NT also states that the detailed laws are indeed for those Jews who do not recognise Jesus first incarnation on earth and for those who do including non jews; a more spiritually advanced understanding. For example Jeus stating regarding diet, " for the clean everything is clean" and showing that We humans who accept Jeus can also perfom greater mjiracles than he performed as in "if you ask my father anything in my name you can move a mountain".

The NT lists gifts from the Holy spirit which the first disciples were given and indeed many Christians today are granted as long as they recognise they are not actually performing those miracles, ( healing, prophecising. casting out demons etc) but God is doing this when they pray to God.

God is truely amazing.
However to truely understand the whole Bible ( and it is a complete book with the beginning as well as the end of this eternity) we really do need the wisdom of the Holy spirit when reading the Bible and each sentence then becomes so rich and profound!

Our God is an awesome God
You reaign from Heaven above
With Wisdom Power and Love
Our God is an awesome God

Peace be with you