What do Christians really think about the Qur'an

[fallingblood]

yes they could do that with or without the mosaic law. But your context of the law keeps changing. I am always referring to the ordinances of the law...the prescriptions of justice and atonement for sins and the ceremonial requirements. Im not talking about simply praying to God.

My context of the laws is not changing. I'm talking about the Law as a whole. You are talking about a very small part of the law.

You insist that christians should keep every word of the mosaic law, that must include all the requirements of the law including the ordinances/sacrifices/purification rituals/ceremonies, yet its impossible to do so without a priesthood to administer it.

Not at all. I don't insist that Christians should keep the Mosaic Law. I am stating that Jesus stated that. I'm aware that Christianity is not the same as what Jesus was practicing. They are two different religions.

Also, the priests oversaw a small part of the Law. Yes, sacrifices would not be possible, but most of the rest would be. Case in point, Jews continue to practice the majority of the law without a priesthood in charge. Thus, your argument obviously fails.

Why were the prophets necessary, is the question you should be asking.


You see, when the priests were corrupt, the people became corrupt and when the priests were faithful the people were faithful....why? Because the priests led the people before God by means of the mosaic law. If they didnt lead the people in the law by 'doing' the law, then God did not accept them :
Isaiah 9:16-17

First, not a rebuttal to what I stated. Side stepping the question simply won't work, and trying to discuss a point that had nothing to do with what I was saying, won't work. The fact that there were prophets showed that your point was wrong. As in, there were others ways to approach God. You did not offer a rebuttal to that.

You also fail to realize that there were more than just priests. There was a King. The King had the power. All of the verses you are talking about occur during the reign of Kings. Not the major kings (Saul, David, Solomon), but the kings of a divided nation. That context is huge in this. That was a lot of what the problem was.

If you look at the history of Israel, the rulers were not priests, for the most part. They were judges, or kings (there were others, for a point, such as Moses, and Joshua, but for a vast amount of time, the leaders were judges and kings). The point you are trying to make, trying to make the priests seem to be the leaders, simply ignores the facts.

And again, the context in which those prophets were living makes a massive difference. Many of the Kings themselves were seen as horrible.

 

[fallingblood]

Because look at vs 23 which says that all the other priests had to be succeeded because death prevented them from continuing on as priests... yet about Jesus he says 'You are a priest forever" because he 'lives forever'

i dont speak greek so like everyone else who can't speak greek I have to rely on an english translation.

You were talking about the translators having to add stuff. If you can't show it in the Greek, in the context that you were speaking, then your argument is moot. The English translations are not necessarily the best. And the translation you use makes a whole lot of difference. Some translations simply are better than others.

thats exactly right and its why translators have to add in additional phrases by NECESSITY just to be able to convey the full sense of the greek.

Without knowing Greek, you won't get the full sense of the Greek.

the prophets were sent because the priests had been unfaithful and when the priests were unfaithful, God would not speak to them or the people.

Moses was a prophet, and there were no priests. So your point is moot.

John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Doesn't imply there won't be another prophet. Did people come to the father through Moses, Jeremiah, etc? Nope.

Acts 4:12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved

Not in the Gospels. Also, doesn't say or imply there won't be another prophet. A prophet's name is not something that one gets saved by. That is not why prophets came.

 

[Pegg]

You were talking about the translators having to add stuff. If you can't show it in the Greek, in the context that you were speaking, then your argument is moot. The English translations are not necessarily the best. And the translation you use makes a whole lot of difference. Some translations simply are better than others.


Without knowing Greek, you won't get the full sense of the Greek.
Moses was a prophet, and there were no priests. So your point is moot.


Doesn't imply there won't be another prophet. Did people come to the father through Moses, Jeremiah, etc? Nope.
Not in the Gospels. Also, doesn't say or imply there won't be another prophet. A prophet's name is not something that one gets saved by. That is not why prophets came.

alrighty then.

 

[Pegg]

My context of the laws is not changing. I'm talking about the Law as a whole. You are talking about a very small part of the law.

i really didnt want to do this but i just cant help myself


the law 'as a whole' includes all the ordinances/ceremonial practices/regulations. So perhaps you are not talking about the 'whole' law after all.

 

[fallingblood]

i really didnt want to do this but i just cant help myself


the law 'as a whole' includes all the ordinances/ceremonial practices/regulations. So perhaps you are not talking about the 'whole' law after all.

I am talking about all of that. Yes, a small portion of that is not observed anymore, but the majority of it is. Again, only a small portion, a very small portion, is not observed. Primarily because there is no temple.

 

[Pegg]

I am talking about all of that. Yes, a small portion of that is not observed anymore, but the majority of it is. Again, only a small portion, a very small portion, is not observed. Primarily because there is no temple.

so what do you think the priests would do in this 21st century if they were still around


hypothetically speaking... do you think they'd still offer sacrifices and administer the sort of justice prescribed in the law?

 

[fallingblood]

so what do you think the priests would do in this 21st century if they were still around


hypothetically speaking... do you think they'd still offer sacrifices and administer the sort of justice prescribed in the law?

They didn't prescribe the justice in the law. The King did. As for sacrifices, it wouldn't be up to the priests. The Temple would have to be rebuilt, and it won't likely be rebuilt until the Jewish Messiah appears (if there is truly such a thing). And then, he will have the authority to decide.

 

[Pegg]

They didn't prescribe the justice in the law. The King did. As for sacrifices, it wouldn't be up to the priests. The Temple would have to be rebuilt, and it won't likely be rebuilt until the Jewish Messiah appears (if there is truly such a thing). And then, he will have the authority to decide.

The law was instituted long before Isreal had a king...moses included nothing about a king dishing out justice because the law was written before the Isrealites asked for a King to rule over them...it only speaks of priests and judges in judicial matters.

Deut 21:5 “And the priests the sons of Le′vi must approach, because they are the ones Jehovah your God has chosen to minister to him and to bless in the name of Jehovah and at whose mouth every dispute over every violent deed should be disposed of.

Deut 17:8-9 “In case a matter for judicial decision ...9 and you must go to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who will be acting in those days, and you must make inquiry, and they must hand down to you the word of the judicial decision"

Deut 19:16 In case a witness scheming violence should rise up against a man to bring a charge of revolt against him, 17 the two men who have the dispute must also stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges who will be acting in those days

When moses wrote the mosaic law code, God was their king and the law was a covenant between the people and their king. This is why the priests were the ones who administered the judiciary system. The priests were the servants of God (the king) and they answered to him directly.
And those priests offered sacrifices for a very long time without a temple... so the sacrificial system does not need a physical temple to occur. God even says in scripture that he doesnt want a temple because "the heavens are my throne and the earth is my footstool, where then is the house you can build for me" ... the temple was only for the benefit of the people who wanted something visible and grand. Do you think God needs an earthly king to rule the earth?

 

[fallingblood]

The law was instituted long before Isreal had a king...moses included nothing about a king dishing out justice because the law was written before the Isrealites asked for a King to rule over them...it only speaks of priests and judges in judicial matters.

Do you know what judge is? It was like a prelude to a king.

When moses wrote the mosaic law code, God was their king and the law was a covenant between the people and their king. This is why the priests were the ones who administered the judiciary system. The priests were the servants of God (the king) and they answered to him directly.
And those priests offered sacrifices for a very long time without a temple... so the sacrificial system does not need a physical temple to occur. God even says in scripture that he doesnt want a temple because "the heavens are my throne and the earth is my footstool, where then is the house you can build for me" ... the temple was only for the benefit of the people who wanted something visible and grand. Do you think God needs an earthly king to rule the earth?

But Moses was the leader, and essentially made the major decisions. The priests were not the leaders. Yes, the held somewhat of a special position, but it is not what you're saying.

The priests main purpose was offering the sacrifices, and blessing the people.

More so, the verse you quoted doesn't say that God doesn't want a Temple. Actually, the OT says that God will again set up the Temple. So it doesn't make sense why God would have the Temple rebuilt, and promise to have it rebuilt, if he didn't want it.

In addition though, the priesthood, from what I understand, still exists in a form. They don't have the same responsibility, since the Temple was destroyed, but they still have a role.

Finally, the priests were not the justice givers. The Jews had leaders. There was Moses, then Joshua. The Elders, Judges and local rulers. The Major kings, and then some minor kings. Later, they were ruled by foreign people.

 

[Pegg]

Do you know what judge is? It was like a prelude to a king.
But Moses was the leader, and essentially made the major decisions. The priests were not the leaders. Yes, the held somewhat of a special position, but it is not what you're saying.

Moses was only a mediator between God and Isreal... he didnt make the decisions himself but he had to ask God for which direction to take and what to do. Moses made no decisions himself so he was not the 'leader' as such...God was.

More so, the verse you quoted doesn't say that God doesn't want a Temple. Actually, the OT says that God will again set up the Temple. So it doesn't make sense why God would have the Temple rebuilt, and promise to have it rebuilt, if he didn't want it.

we have to take into consideration the 'spiritual' significance of the temple. What did it represent? And who did the high priest represent? And who did the king represent?

when you can answer these three things you will have the answer to your own question.

In addition though, the priesthood, from what I understand, still exists in a form. They don't have the same responsibility, since the Temple was destroyed, but they still have a role.

I thought they were similar to the islamic system whereby individual clerics/rabbi's act as teachers of law

As far as I know, to be a priest means you have to be of the 'priestly tribe' or the tribe of Levi according to the mosaic law... i dont believe any jew can trace their family line or prove which tribe they come from today because when the temple was destroyed in 70ce, all the birth records and genealogies were also destroyed.

Finally, the priests were not the justice givers. The Jews had leaders. There was Moses, then Joshua. The Elders, Judges and local rulers. The Major kings, and then some minor kings. Later, they were ruled by foreign people.

Yes thats pretty much the way it went...but the changes you speak of were over a long period of time and were regressive,

They started with the best system... God as king, 1 man as mediator & the priests to administer the system. This was the beginning of the Mosaic Law...it was a system of governance by God. A true theocracy that lasted almost 500 years. there was no king for isreal until 1117BCE in the days of Samuel the prophet. It was then that the people asked for a king to rule them. They had lost sight of the fact that they were being ruled by a king, God. Anyway, they got Saul, chosen by God and annointed by Samuel the prophet.

Isreal went downhill from that point on because as you know, not all the kings were faithful to the mosaic law...not even the very first king chosen.
Having an earthly ruler was detrimental to the nation. God only allowed it because they demanded an earthly king because they wanted to be like the rest of the nations around them.

This is why an earthly king and temple is not going to come to fruition... it doesn't work.

 

[Subby]

It would be difficult to find many (if any) Christians that hold the Qu'ran to be apart of their canon. Many Christians, such as myself, believe that many paths lead to God. So while they may not adhere to the Qu'ran, they understand that others may and if that is the path of God they choose then good for them.

No many paths do not lead to God. Christ is the path. What you are talking about is not Christianity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No many paths do not lead to God. Christ is the path. What you are talking about is not Christianity.

Your "opinion" is noted....

 

[Subby]

Your "opinion" is noted....

Its biblical. So therefore, authoritative and not mere opinion but a fact about Christianity.

 

[fallingblood]

Its biblical. So therefore, authoritative and not mere opinion but a fact about Christianity.

Where does the Bible ever mention Christianity? I believe it mentions Christians, but if you look at Christians in the first couple of centuries, they were a very diverse bunch of Christians.

More so, the NT doesn't even agree with itself. What Paul was teaching and what Jesus was teaching, even though there were some similarities, can be seen as two distinct religions. Paul was teaching a proto-Christian religion, Jesus was teaching Judaism.

More so, what you are saying is an opinion, and a very narrow opinion. From the Bible alone, you would see that Jews also have a path to God, which is what the OT is about, to a point. Even Jesus follows those lines. More so, there are many different ways to follow Christ. Again, all one has to do is look at the few first centuries in which Christianity was beginning.

 

[Subby]

Where does the Bible ever mention Christianity? I believe it mentions Christians, but if you look at Christians in the first couple of centuries, they were a very diverse bunch of Christians.

More so, the NT doesn't even agree with itself. What Paul was teaching and what Jesus was teaching, even though there were some similarities, can be seen as two distinct religions. Paul was teaching a proto-Christian religion, Jesus was teaching Judaism.

They were all united in common beliefs that are, wait for it... Biblical and thus Christian.

More so, what you are saying is an opinion, and a very narrow opinion. From the Bible alone, you would see that Jews also have a path to God, which is what the OT is about, to a point. Even Jesus follows those lines. More so, there are many different ways to follow Christ. Again, all one has to do is look at the few first centuries in which Christianity was beginning.

How were people following Christ differently before 150 AD? How were they teaching that faith alone in life, death and resurrection of CHRIST, is NOT what leads to salvation?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

They were all united in common beliefs that are, wait for it... Biblical and thus Christian.

How were people following Christ differently before 150 AD? How were they teaching that faith alone in life, death and resurrection of CHRIST, is NOT what leads to salvation?[/quote]

In the very beginning they still were and held to....wait for it Jews who held their Jewish traditions......It's without a doubt they shifted their thinking and practices and the movement gained new followers who weren't Jewish and most likely pagans....

 

[Subby]

In the very beginning they still were and held to....wait for it Jews who held their Jewish traditions......It's without a doubt they shifted their thinking and practices and the movement gained new followers who weren't Jewish and most likely pagans....

In the very beginning? What in the world is your time reference if you think Jews were around in the very beginning?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In the very beginning? What in the world is your time reference if you think Jews were around in the very beginning?

Very beginning of the movement.....:slap:

 

[Subby]

Very beginning of the movement.....:slap:

Jews being Christian does not mean anything other than Jews being Christian.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jews being Christian does not mean anything other than Jews being Christian.