The Christiano-Islam Revelation Concept

[InvestigateTruth]

The Moseside (?) Laws are Laws fit within the boundaries of the Noahide Laws. There is nothing that is permitted in the 613 that is prohibited in the Noahide Laws. They are an additional 606, not a replacement.

Because the 613 were not intended for all of mankind, they were intended for Israel. Moses didn't bring the Laws for all of mankind either. They were brought specifically for Israel. The Noahide Laws didn't stop being in effect when Moses brought his Laws. Noah's apply to the entire world. Moses' applies specifically to Israel.

What was postponed was deciding who would gain the title Israel and inherit those 613 Laws. Once G-d chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He waited until Abraham's children became a nation and the time they had to remain in Egypt ended, then He gave them the Laws.

Ok. So what I understood from you is, although a people lived in the geographical location as 'Israel' prior to Moses, yet these people had not become ready to receive the Laws of Moses yet, until centuries after Abraham, these people got to a level or station or whatever qualification reason to receive the Law of Moses. If I understood you correctly, I see that similar to what Baha'i Scriptures says, that as humanity becomes more mature and ready to receive a more complete revelation, God at that time gives them a fuller measure of Truth, and a Law that is suited to the exigencies of the Age people live.

 

[CMike]

"Judaism was running along when all of a sudden a religious development in the form of Jesus, brings a new revelation of/from G-d, to the religion that is expected to replace the previously understood religion."

What you fail to understand here is that it wasn't an "All-of-a-sudden" thing. Christianity happened after the birth of Christ. (Circa AD 30). --Christ being the son of God--; Christ being the one who died for everyone's sins. Jesus Christ overruled the "old" laws.
The group of people who choose to believe in and follow Jesus became Christians.
On the other hand, Jews turned a blank and continued their own way.

I can't comment on Muslims because I don't have the knowledge in that area.

How can you overrule laws that came from G-D?

If G-D made them, weren't they perfect to being with? If you do believe that G-D made the laws then how can they be anything but perfect?

 

[Tumah]

Peace
The Greek term Yahadut(Judaism) according to you existed in the time of Jesus.Can you be more specific and quote from the verses of Esther because i cannot find it.
Tks in advance
Farouk

Esther 2:5; 3:4,6, 10, 13; 4:3, 7, 13, 14, 16; 5:13; 6:10, 13; 8:1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17; 9:1-6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-25, 27-31; 10:3

I could, but that might become misleading/inaccurate.. What would Isaiah say?

I'm not sure. If that's now what you meant, then I have no idea what you said.

Ok. So what I understood from you is, although a people lived in the geographical location as 'Israel' prior to Moses, yet these people had not become ready to receive the Laws of Moses yet, until centuries after Abraham, these people got to a level or station or whatever qualification reason to receive the Law of Moses. If I understood you correctly, I see that similar to what Baha'i Scriptures says, that as humanity becomes more mature and ready to receive a more complete revelation, God at that time gives them a fuller measure of Truth, and a Law that is suited to the exigencies of the Age people live.

Yes, the qualification is to be a nation, not just a couple of people. From Abraham until the descent to Egypt, the maximum number of people who could theoretically have been given the Law was 70. Seventy people do not a nation make. And we wouldn't take the revelation of a few people as the basis of our religion. So we become nation-sized first, then G-d reveals Himself to all of us.

But all this is a matter of practicality. Abraham and his descendants until then did actually keep the 613 (while in Canaan) although they weren't commanded to. There is actually an interesting book written about 300 years ago where among other things, the author traces back a disagreement about whether those living prior to Moses should have the status of Israel, to the Patriarchs, Matriarchs and Tribes. He bases this on Talmudic and Midrashic sources, where the debate continued among Amoraim.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm not sure. If that's now what you meant, then I have no idea what you said.

Does Isaiah address your question in Chapter 45?

 

[Tumah]

Does Isaiah address your question in Chapter 45?

The only verse that addresses my question is verse 7, "and creates evil." Maybe there was something else you had in mind?

 

[Sleeppy]

The only verse that addresses my question is verse 7, "and creates evil." Maybe there was something else you had in mind?

The surrounding verses are also relevant.. But, verse 7 is enough.

I wouldn't say God Himself is capable of doing evil, even (and especially) being God. But, I would acknowledge that He created all there is; and Adam, despite being formed as something "good", still lacked God's guaranteed propensity for goodness-- at least indefinitely.


So, creation has limitations, sometimes resulting in "evil" results- whereas God is fully capable of His will.

 

[Tumah]

The surrounding verses are also relevant.. But, verse 7 is enough.

I wouldn't say God Himself is capable of doing evil, even (and especially) being God. But, I would acknowledge that He created all there is; and Adam, despite being formed as something "good", still lacked God's guaranteed propensity for goodness-- at least indefinitely.


So, creation has limitations, sometimes resulting in "evil" results- whereas God is fully capable of His will.

Let's pretend I understand what you are saying here. How does this relate to the original point I made in the OP?

 

[Sleeppy]

Let's pretend I understand what you are saying here. How does this relate to the original point I made in the OP?

It's natural for you to divide/distinguish yourself from the other creatures that God formed. In reality, you're asking God why He caused Judaism to be sufficient for you, but insufficient for others.. This isn't a question you answer with men.


Isaiah 45:9
Woe to him who contends with his Creator, a potsherd among the potsherds of the earth, shall the clay say to its potter, "What do you make? And your work has no place."

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok. I'll be honest. I thought up the term before I thought of the question. Anyway.

I've kind of pointed this out in another thread with regards to Islam, but I wanted to develop the idea a little more.

Essentially, this concept of interpreting Scriptures to fit a "new" revelation that wasn't previously known or expected, is an idea in the Abrahamic pathways, that began with Christianity.

Judaism was running along when all of a sudden a religious development in the form of Jesus, brings a new revelation of/from G-d, to the religion that is expected to replace the previously understood religion.

Then Christianity does its Christian thing for a number of hundred years, when the newest prophet Muhammad, explains that G-d actually wanted to add a couple new tweaks to the previous tweakings He hath twooketh.

So I guess the question is, why do you Christians, ignore Judaism's claim that the TaNaCH and indeed the religion was already perfect before you came, but then turn around and voice those same claims to Muslims?

Why do you Muslims not believe Christians when they explain to you that your interpretation of their Scriptures is wrong, but then go ahead and tell our Bahai friends the same explanation about the Quran?

If you agree that a new revelation forces a reinterpretation of the previously understood passages of your predecessor, why do you deny the same to your successor?

I'm a bit confused in regards to your reasoning , as others seem to be...Abraham was revelatory in nature, Moses was as well, even Noah was ..etc... I think you mean revelatory in some specific sense perhaps? But it's a slippery slope because if Jews are to follow the Torah commandments that's certainly revelatory, even the Talmud could be revelatory.

 

[Tumah]

It's natural for you to divide/distinguish yourself from the other creatures that God formed. In reality, you're asking God why He caused Judaism to be sufficient for you, but insufficient for others.. This isn't a question you answer with men.


Isaiah 45:9
Woe to him who contends with his Creator, a potsherd among the potsherds of the earth, shall the clay say to its potter, "What do you make? And your work has no place."

So you are saying that G-d keeps changing the religion that everyone should follow because at some point G-d
s previous Word stops being perfect for people?

I'm a bit confused in regards to your reasoning , as others seem to be...Abraham was revelatory in nature, Moses was as well, even Noah was ..etc... I think you mean revelatory in some specific sense perhaps? But it's a slippery slope because if Jews are to follow the Torah commandments that's certainly revelatory, even the Talmud could be revelatory.

The difference between their revelations is that with the exception of Moses, there was no change in the nature of the way one was required to commune with G-d. And even after Moses, the way was not uprooted, but added to for a specific people. The Noahide Laws are just as relevant today as they were for Noah, and they are just as relevant to Jews as they are for non-Jews. Just that Jews have additional Laws they also need to follow.

Christianity uproots the previous way one communes with G-d, not just for Jews, but for the entire world. Now everything is supposed to be through Jesus.

Islam uproots the Christian way one communes with G-d in a way more similar to Judaism, but still different.

 

[Desert Snake]

The difference between their revelations is that with the exception of Moses, there was no change in the nature of the way one was required to commune with G-d. And even after Moses, the way was not uprooted, but added to for a specific people. The Noahide Laws are just as relevant today as they were for Noah, and they are just as relevant to Jews as they are for non-Jews. Just that Jews have additional Laws they also need to follow.

Christianity uproots the previous way one communes with G-d, not just for Jews, but for the entire world. Now everything is supposed to be through Jesus.

Islam uproots the Christian way one communes with G-d in a way more similar to Judaism, but still different.

I think it depends on how one interprets the teachings of Jesus...if one interprets the teachings as following his example and NOT adhering to the torah laws in entirety, but still maintaining the monotheistic 'covenant', Jesus becomes similar to Moses or even Abraham...I'm not seeing the major difference in revelatory nature so much...Even with the trinity, this isn't incompatible to the covenant as far as I can tell.
But, I still think both the Torah and the new testament are revelatory in nature, obviously the difference here is the 'divine' nature of Jesus, but then we open another can of worms because that implies no-one can be 'perfect' in nature does it not, and all the texts would have to be examined for mention of perfection. Islam has it even easier in this regard because Mohamed is merely seen as a prophet.
If we examine this in 'realist' light then both Mohamed and Jesus could be seen as reformers, with Jesus having divine nature.
The real problem I have with the OP is the stance of 'no reform', even though we have Torah examples of reform such as the golden calf, the Ten Commandments, those seem pretty reform in nature to me.
The ideas are getting thick and convoluded, I think, perhaps we can focus on one issue of contention.

 

[Desert Snake]

Judaism was running along when all of a sudden a religious development in the form of Jesus, brings a new revelation of/from G-d, to the religion that is expected to replace the previously understood religion.

See, this is my main contention here...Christianity was a new covenant, not a new religion. There are too many arguments about this, and it depends on ones interpretation of scripture, but I maintain you can't say the entire Christian concept is creating a new religion, otherwise we wouldn't have all the connectivity between old and new testament... almost pointless to argue, there are too many sects of Xianity and Judaism to arbitrarily choose what issues to debate.

 

[Tumah]

I think it depends on how one interprets the teachings of Jesus...if one interprets the teachings as following his example and NOT adhering to the torah laws in entirety, but still maintaining the monotheistic 'covenant', Jesus becomes similar to Moses or even Abraham...I'm not seeing the major difference in revelatory nature so much...Even with the trinity, this isn't incompatible to the covenant as far as I can tell.
But, I still think both the Torah and the new testament are revelatory in nature, obviously the difference here is the 'divine' nature of Jesus, but then we open another can of worms because that implies no-one can be 'perfect' in nature does it not, and all the texts would have to be examined for mention of perfection. Islam has it even easier in this regard because Mohamed is merely seen as a prophet.
If we examine this in 'realist' light then both Mohamed and Jesus could be seen as reformers, with Jesus having divine nature.
The real problem I have with the OP is the stance of 'no reform', even though we have Torah examples of reform such as the golden calf, the Ten Commandments, those seem pretty reform in nature to me.
The ideas are getting thick and convoluded, I think, perhaps we can focus on one issue of contention.

See, this is my main contention here...Christianity was a new covenant, not a new religion. There are too many arguments about this, and it depends on ones interpretation of scripture, but I maintain you can't say the entire Christian concept is creating a new religion, otherwise we wouldn't have all the connectivity between old and new testament... almost pointless to argue, there are too many sects of Xianity and Judaism to arbitrarily choose what issues to debate.

It seems like you are trying to turn the issue into one of semantics. Religion is just a term we use to distinguish between practices and beliefs of people. The beliefs and practices of Judaism and Christianity are as completely unrelated as two religions that almost have a Book in common can be. Whether you call it a covenant or religion, at the end of the day there is a major replacement going on.

Whether you say the revelation was a matter of covenants or not, at the end of the day, Judaism doesn't remove the responsibilities of the previous covenant/revelation/Law. Yes, there are new covenants, such as the Davidic covenant. However, David and his descendants are still bound to the Mosaic covenant and the Noahide Laws. When G-d gave the 613 Laws to Israel, it didn't remove the 7 Noahide Laws. Israel still could not kill. Still could not steal. When G-d made the Davidic covenant, David still could not eat pork. Still must fringe his cornered garments.

However, when Jesus comes around, then everyone could eat pork. They could harvest on the Sabbath. This is called replacing the previous Law.

You bring an example of the first and second commandments. That is not a very good example because they are both virtually identical, listing the same Laws.

 

[Desert Snake]

It seems like you are trying to turn the issue into one of semantics. Religion is just a term we use to distinguish between practices and beliefs of people. The beliefs and practices of Judaism and Christianity are as completely unrelated as two religions that almost have a Book in common can be. Whether you call it a covenant or religion, at the end of the day there is a major replacement going on.

Whether you say the revelation was a matter of covenants or not, at the end of the day, Judaism doesn't remove the responsibilities of the previous covenant/revelation/Law. Yes, there are new covenants, such as the Davidic covenant. However, David and his descendants are still bound to the Mosaic covenant and the Noahide Laws. When G-d gave the 613 Laws to Israel, it didn't remove the 7 Noahide Laws. Israel still could not kill. Still could not steal. When G-d made the Davidic covenant, David still could not eat pork. Still must fringe his cornered garments.

However, when Jesus comes around, then everyone could eat pork. They could harvest on the Sabbath. This is called replacing the previous Law.

You bring an example of the first and second commandments. That is not a very good example because they are both virtually identical, listing the same Laws.

Let's say I agree with all of this, there is still the revelatory nature of Abraham, Moses, and others..., so I don't understand what the "point" is of bringing up the revelation aspect of Islam and Xianity... That being the case I'm going to let the conversation lie as it is and just contribute if something else comes up in the thread discussion.

 

[Tumah]

Let's say I agree with all of this, there is still the revelatory nature of Abraham, Moses, and others..., so I don't understand what the "point" is of bringing up the revelation aspect of Islam and Xianity... That being the case I'm going to let the conversation lie as it is and just contribute if something else comes up in the thread discussion.

I'm not really sure I understand what you mean.
Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Sleeppy]

So you are saying that G-d keeps changing the religion that everyone should follow because at some point G-d
s previous Word stops being perfect for people?

I'm not one to think God's Word is vain. The reality we live in is God's, foremost. Every potsherd, Jewish or otherwise, is compelled to do the will of the Creator- and His will is a Word being spoken into perfect fruition, continually.

Isaiah 55:11
So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, except it accomplish that which I please, and make the thing whereto I sent it prosper.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not one to think God's Word is vain. The reality we live in is God's, foremost. Every potsherd, Jewish or otherwise, is compelled to do the will of the Creator- and His will is a Word being spoken into perfect fruition, continually.

Isaiah 55:11
So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, except it accomplish that which I please, and make the thing whereto I sent it prosper.

I kind of get the feeling that you are trying to lead me along general ideas instead of explaining how it specifically relates to the question at hand. Among my peers in Talmudic seminary, I am the least intelligent by far. So I am used to not understanding things that other people see clearly. So would you mind being a little more explicit?

 

[Sleeppy]

I kind of get the feeling that you are trying to lead me along general ideas instead of explaining how it specifically relates to the question at hand. Among my peers in Talmudic seminary, I am the least intelligent by far. So I am used to not understanding things that other people see clearly. So would you mind being a little more explicit?

Knowing that the Most High forms and creates our reality (Isaiah 45:7), according to His Word (Isaiah 55:11), why ask His potsherds about the things they are commanded to do (Isaiah 45:9)?

 

[thau]

Ok. I'll be honest. I thought up the term before I thought of the question. Anyway.

I've kind of pointed this out in another thread with regards to Islam, but I wanted to develop the idea a little more.

Essentially, this concept of interpreting Scriptures to fit a "new" revelation that wasn't previously known or expected, is an idea in the Abrahamic pathways, that began with Christianity.

Judaism was running along when all of a sudden a religious development in the form of Jesus, brings a new revelation of/from G-d, to the religion that is expected to replace the previously understood religion.

Then Christianity does its Christian thing for a number of hundred years, when the newest prophet Muhammad, explains that G-d actually wanted to add a couple new tweaks to the previous tweakings He hath twooketh.

So I guess the question is, why do you Christians, ignore Judaism's claim that the TaNaCH and indeed the religion was already perfect before you came, but then turn around and voice those same claims to Muslims?

Why do you Muslims not believe Christians when they explain to you that your interpretation of their Scriptures is wrong, but then go ahead and tell our Bahai friends the same explanation about the Quran?

If you agree that a new revelation forces a reinterpretation of the previously understood passages of your predecessor, why do you deny the same to your successor?

I offer no lengthy explanations, only my opinion.

Judaism has legs to stand on and considerable manifestations to validate it.

Christianity advances Judaism’s promises and prophecies. It stands on Judaism’s legs and many manifestations of its own validating its claims. Christianity does not need the Bible to make its case.

Islam has neither legs nor manifestations and their lack of providing them in the here and now proves it. Virtually no one can take their scant and selective Scritural interpretations seriously.

G-d does not tell us who will be in heaven and who will not. Catholicism dares not do so either.

 

[Tumah]

Knowing that the Most High forms and creates our reality (Isaiah 45:7), according to His Word (Isaiah 55:11), why ask His potsherds about the things they are commanded to do (Isaiah 45:9)?

I guess you would mind. Oh well.

I offer no lengthy explanations, only my opinion.

Judaism has legs to stand on and considerable manifestations to validate it.

Christianity advances Judaism’s promises and prophecies. It stands on Judaism’s legs and many manifestations of its own validating its claims. Christianity does not need the Bible to make its case.

Islam has neither legs nor manifestations and their lack of providing them in the here and now proves it. Virtually no one can take their scant and selective Scritural interpretations seriously.

G-d does not tell us who will be in heaven and who will not. Catholicism dares not do so either.

Before we discuss the rest of your post, would you mind providing a little more information about the red statements?