What do Christians really think about the Qur'an

[Subby]

I know I can't believe you don't get it either. Read the relevant texts, usually helps.

 

[fallingblood]

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

Jesus and Paul may had common beliefs, but for the most part no. I have common beliefs with atheists, but that doesn't make me an atheist. More so, Jews have some common beliefs that are Biblical, yet they aren't Christians. More so, Jesus didn't ask to be written into the Bible. He was a Jew, not a Christian. Christianity didn't even exist during the lifetime of Jesus. So no, your argument simply falls flat.

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?

Some believed in multiple Gods. Some believed the the Jewish God was evil, and that Jesus was a totally different God. Some believed that Jesus was fully human, other believed that he was fully divine, and yet others believed that he was made out of two parts; Jesus the human, and Christ the divine.

Some were strictly Jewish who followed the law, and only believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Others were nothing at all Jewish.

Some accepted the OT, some flat out rejected it.

If you want to know more, check out Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities.

 

[fallingblood]

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

Jews weren't being Christian. Jews were being Jews, who accepted Jesus as the Messiah. They continued to follow Judaism. They were fully Jews. They were not at all Christian.

 

[Subby]

Jesus and Paul may had common beliefs, but for the most part no. I have common beliefs with atheists, but that doesn't make me an atheist. More so, Jews have some common beliefs that are Biblical, yet they aren't Christians. More so, Jesus didn't ask to be written into the Bible. He was a Jew, not a Christian. Christianity didn't even exist during the lifetime of Jesus. So no, your argument simply falls flat.

Sorry, Christians are united in common beliefs, as I have laid out, namely Christ is central to Christianity... In spite of your ridiculous logic thinking you are addressing my argument.

Some believed in multiple Gods. Some believed the the Jewish God was evil, and that Jesus was a totally different God. Some believed that Jesus was fully human, other believed that he was fully divine, and yet others believed that he was made out of two parts; Jesus the human, and Christ the divine.

And all are not Christian in any way.

Some were strictly Jewish who followed the law, and only believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Others were nothing at all Jewish.

Some accepted the OT, some flat out rejected it.

If you want to know more, check out Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities.

You missed my point and Bart Ehrman is laughable.

 

[Subby]

Jews weren't being Christian. Jews were being Jews, who accepted Jesus as the Messiah. They continued to follow Judaism. They were fully Jews. They were not at all Christian.

There is a race/ethnicity that is Jewish, and in that context yes Jews accepted Christ as Messiah. They did not continue to follow Judaism as a religion if they are Christian and follow Christ.

 

[fallingblood]

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.

He was seen as the leader. Just the same way that the Kings, working on behalf of God, were seen as the leaders. Again, Moses was seen as the leader, and he led the people.

Again, Moses led or commanded the group, and thus was the leader. He may have been doing God's will, but he was the earthly leader.

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.

It doesn't answer anything. God specifically stated that he would rebuild the Temple here on Earth. Meaning, there would be a physically rebuilt Temple. It wasn't some spiritual temple, as that is never suggested. We are told that the Temple, the Earthly Temple, which only means one thing, was to be rebuilt. The spiritual significance doesn't answer anything at all for me.

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

Rabbis and priests are different.

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.

Not all priests were from the tribe of Levi. We see this with the Hasmoneans as well as else where. There was quite a bit of debate among who was the rightful priests. However, priests still exist to this day.

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.

There was actually one short lived king before Saul (may have been more, but I only remember the one). Also, the Kingship, according to the Bible, was a time of greatness. Maybe not quite with Saul, but especially with David. Solomon as well, but David is more remembered. That and Solomon was somewhat hard on his people.

Even before the Kingship though, there were many problems. During the time of the Judges, the Jews constantly did evil in the eyes of the Lord. Even during the time of Moses, it wasn't the best situation. The Hebrew nation was really in constant warfare. So ruling just the earthly king and temple as some problem really doesn't work.

Especially considering that the second Temple crumbled not because of a kingship, but because of a revolt among the lower class. And then it was only destroyed because the Romans wanted to send a message, and were most likely just ticked off.

 

[fallingblood]

There is a race/ethnicity that is Jewish, and in that context yes Jews accepted Christ as Messiah. They did not continue to follow Judaism as a religion if they are Christian and follow Christ.

There is no race of Jews. There are the Jewish people, but not Jewish race.

And yes, they continued to follow Judaism as a religion, and accept Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus himself was a Jew, who practiced and taught Judaism. So there is no problem there. You can be a practicing Jew, who observes Judaism, and still hold that Jesus was the Messiah. Thinking that Jesus is the Messiah does not make one a Christian.

 

[Subby]

There is no race of Jews. There are the Jewish people, but not Jewish race.

Like I said... race/ethnicity... So whatever dude.

And yes, they continued to follow Judaism as a religion, and accept Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus himself was a Jew, who practiced and taught Judaism. So there is no problem there. You can be a practicing Jew, who observes Judaism, and still hold that Jesus was the Messiah. Thinking that Jesus is the Messiah does not make one a Christian.

Do you not know how Jesus challenged the established legalistic Judaism of His time? He fulfilled the law within Himself, and thus presented the New covenant of which is spiritual or inner transformation rather than legalistic manifestation of the Israelites, whom became the Jewish people.

 

[fallingblood]

Sorry, Christians are united in common beliefs, as I have laid out, namely Christ is central to Christianity... In spite of your ridiculous logic thinking you are addressing my argument.

So if Christians are united in common beliefs, why are there so many denominations that disagree with each other? They may have some common beliefs, but many of the beliefs differ.

More so, what about Christ? There are many opinions about Christ.

My logic was ridiculous. I showed why your argument didn't stand. But I see you, as a good Christian, must resort to insult.

And all are not Christian in any way.

Says who? They all used scripture to support their views.

You missed my point and Bart Ehrman is laughable.

I didn't miss your point. Your point was wrong, so I addressed it. And why is Bart Ehrman laughable? He is quite highly respected scholar, and a leader on the subject of the NT and Jesus.

 

[Subby]

So if Christians are united in common beliefs, why are there so many denominations that disagree with each other? They may have some common beliefs, but many of the beliefs differ.

There is biblical and there is non-biblical human imitation. Plain and simple, if it doesn't measure up it is founded within the will of humanity rather that of the Word of God that maintains substantive accuracy.

More so, what about Christ? There are many opinions about Christ.

There is only one biblical opinion of interpretation. Some like to rely upon the Bible yet read in there own views, thus with that said you have a historical critical methodology of exegesis that is known. When somebody's own views are applied, then well its not exegesis and thus not Scriptural.

If you have examples, be specific and post them and show how they are scriptural using a historical critical methodology.

 

[fallingblood]

Like I said... race/ethnicity... So whatever dude.

Like I said, not a race. Calling them a race, or implying that they are a race, was central to the persecution of them, especially during the Holocaust. It is offensive.

As for an ethnicity, not quite. Maybe close, but there is more to it than that.

Do you not know how Jesus challenged the established legalistic Judaism of His time? He fulfilled the law within Himself, and thus presented the New covenant of which is spiritual or inner transformation rather than legalistic manifestation of the Israelites, whom became the Jewish people.

Did not Jesus tell his followers that they were suppose to follow the letter to the t? That not even a single law should pass away until the end of the earth and heaven?

Jesus wasn't challenging whether or not the law should be kept. That was accepted by all parties. He was challenging some interpretations of the law. Also, there were various forms of Judaism. All that had debates with each other.

More so, no one can fulfill the law. It doesn't make sense. I don't feel like going into depth so here is another thread that discussed the subject: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/108261-can-jewish-law-fulfilled.html

More so, Jesus never talked about a covenant that would replace the old covenant of the Jews.

Jesus was a Jew. Simple as that. He taught Jews, a Jewish message, and died a Jew. His followers were Jews, who practiced the Jewish Law as Jesus commanded it.

 

[Subby]

Like I said, not a race. Calling them a race, or implying that they are a race, was central to the persecution of them, especially during the Holocaust. It is offensive.

Ethnicity:
An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2] [3]


Race:
on factors such as appearance based on heritable phenotypical characteristics or geographic ancestry, but also often influenced by and correlated with traits such as culture,

Thus, Jews are a race, because they have geographic ancestry according to the bible.

As for an ethnicity, not quite. Maybe close, but there is more to it than that.
Did not Jesus tell his followers that they were suppose to follow the letter to the t? That not even a single law should pass away until the end of the earth and heaven?

Your specific reference is where? Come on be specific.

Jesus wasn't challenging whether or not the law should be kept. That was accepted by all parties. He was challenging some interpretations of the law. Also, there were various forms of Judaism. All that had debates with each other.

More so, no one can fulfill the law. It doesn't make sense. I don't feel like going into depth so here is another thread that discussed the subject: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/108261-can-jewish-law-fulfilled.html

More so, Jesus never talked about a covenant that would replace the old covenant of the Jews.

Jesus was a Jew. Simple as that. He taught Jews, a Jewish message, and died a Jew. His followers were Jews, who practiced the Jewish Law as Jesus commanded it.

Yawn. There was difeernt interpretations of the law as you say, one is in the OT, the other is by Christ. Christ supercedes the law because he fulfilled it by living by it perfectly. Thus he fulfilled it and thus we may not be bound to the law, but have faith through christ, etc.

 

[fallingblood]

There is biblical and there is non-biblical human imitation. Plain and simple, if it doesn't measure up it is founded within the will of humanity rather that of the Word of God that maintains substantive accuracy.

So you get to judge then, based on your opinion? I don't think it works like that, as it is very narrow minded.

Especially since those other denominations do measure up to the Word of God, or so they show by using the Bible to support their ideas. That or tradition that was founded on the Word of God.

There is only one biblical opinion of interpretation. Some like to rely upon the Bible yet read in there own views, thus with that said you have a historical critical methodology of exegesis that is known. When somebody's own views are applied, then well its not exegesis and thus not Scriptural.

Your own views are being applied. It can be seen by what you're saying here.

More so, scripture isn't clear cut. That is why there has always been debate. More so, the Bible contradicts itself in various places, making everything even harder. Finally, we don't even have the original words of the Bible. We have copies of copies of copies, all of which have errors. So how can you say that one person's view is right, even though they aren't reading the original words?

If you have examples, be specific and post them and show how they are scriptural using a historical critical methodology.

I'm not walking into the trap. From your posts so far, I see nothing more than you dismissing what I said, or me wasting my time so you can tell me I'm wrong for no real reason. I'll pass for now.

 

[Subby]

So you get to judge then, based on your opinion? I don't think it works like that, as it is very narrow minded.

No, your premise is wrong.

Especially since those other denominations do measure up to the Word of God, or so they show by using the Bible to support their ideas. That or tradition that was founded on the Word of God.
Your own views are being applied. It can be seen by what you're saying here.

Be specific, if it measures up to Scripture through Christ and exegesis by historical critical methodology, its all good.

More so, scripture isn't clear cut. That is why there has always been debate. More so, the Bible contradicts itself in various places, making everything even harder. Finally, we don't even have the original words of the Bible. We have copies of copies of copies, all of which have errors. So how can you say that one person's view is right, even though they aren't reading the original words?
I'm not walking into the trap. From your posts so far, I see nothing more than you dismissing what I said, or me wasting my time so you can tell me I'm wrong for no real reason. I'll pass for now.

Gotta be specific with your general claims.

 

[fallingblood]

Thus, Jews are a race, because they have geographic ancestry according to the bible.

Jews are not a race. That is offensive, as it brings up terrible ideas of the narrow mindedness of the Holocaust, and other anti-semitic atrocities. More so, Jews don't have a geographic ancestry according to the Bible. The Hebrews did. Others joined, for groups and became Jews.

The Jews are not a race. Actually, race is a biological myth anyway, as there is only one race, the human race. Either way, anyone can be a Jew. You can convert to Judaism, and be a Jew. Thus, Judaism is not a race.

Your specific reference is where? Come on be specific.

Judaism 101: What Is Judaism? Hopefully this will enlighten you a bit.

Yawn. There was difeernt interpretations of the law as you say, one is in the OT, the other is by Christ. Christ supercedes the law because he fulfilled it by living by it perfectly. Thus he fulfilled it and thus we may not be bound to the law, but have faith through christ, etc.

So I see you didn't even glance at the link I posted.

As for the law, there were various interpretations. Yes, Jesus had one, based off the OT. He was a Jew and held the Hebrew scripture to be sacred. The Pharisees had a different interpretation. The Essenes another, the Sadducees another. Other groups had others. What they all held to be true was that the Hebrew scripture was sacred, and that the law was to be kept.

Jesus never superseded the law. He never even claims to do so. He states that his followers are to follow the law to the letter. That they were to follow all of the laws, and that he did not come to abolish the law.

More so, he did not live it perfectly. He broke it on separate occasions, such as disrespecting his mother. So no, he didn't live it perfectly. And I'm sure some of the Jews on this forum could show more problems with the idea that Jesus lived the law perfectly.

Finally, the law can't be fulfilled. God commanded it. He meant his covenant to last until the end. Unless you think God is confused.

 

[fallingblood]

No, your premise is wrong.

I will quote you, "you have to be specific with your claims."

Be specific, if it measures up to Scripture through Christ and exegesis by historical critical methodology, its all good.

Why, so you can dismiss it the same you dismissed what I just said? I'm not wasting my time if you aren't even going to try to defend your point.

Gotta be specific with your general claims.

I think I was specific enough. Your little dismissal don't work. If you can't defend your position, then don't tell me to be more specific. Maybe you would just like to address what I'm saying, instead of dodging it.

 

[Subby]

Jews are not a race. That is offensive, as it brings up terrible ideas of the narrow mindedness of the Holocaust, and other anti-semitic atrocities. More so, Jews don't have a geographic ancestry according to the Bible. The Hebrews did. Others joined, for groups and became Jews.

You can't just say it. Read the Bible and realize the cities mentioned/land mentioned etc and where critical scholarship takes you...

As for the law, there were various interpretations. Yes, Jesus had one, based off the OT. He was a Jew and held the Hebrew scripture to be sacred. The Pharisees had a different interpretation. The Essenes another, the Sadducees another. Other groups had others. What they all held to be true was that the Hebrew scripture was sacred, and that the law was to be kept.

Jesus never superseded the law. He never even claims to do so. He states that his followers are to follow the law to the letter. That they were to follow all of the laws, and that he did not come to abolish the law.

What part of scripture has this?

More so, he did not live it perfectly. He broke it on separate occasions, such as disrespecting his mother. So no, he didn't live it perfectly. And I'm sure some of the Jews on this forum could show more problems with the idea that Jesus lived the law perfectly.

Finally, the law can't be fulfilled. God commanded it. He meant his covenant to last until the end. Unless you think God is confused.

Again show scripture passages.

 

[fallingblood]

You can't just say it. Read the Bible and realize the cities mentioned/land mentioned etc and where critical scholarship takes you...

Again, Jews are not a race. I've shown this beyond a doubt. The fact that anyone can be a Jew shows that it's not a race.

What part of scripture has this?

Again show scripture passages.

Matthew 5:17-20.

 

[Subby]

Again, Jews are not a race. I've shown this beyond a doubt. The fact that anyone can be a Jew shows that it's not a race.

I posted mainstream definitions of both and showed similarity. You have done nothing to refute those definitions and instead posit your own race-myth idea.

Matthew 5:17-20.

" 17"Do not think that I came to abolish the (A)Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

Exactly what I have been saying.

Verse 18 deals with prophetic fulfillment of end times eschatology mentioned in the Law, OT.

 

[fallingblood]

I posted mainstream definitions of both and showed similarity. You have done nothing to refute those definitions and instead posit your own race-myth idea.

I gave you a link that explained it all. Plus, I showed why Jews are not a race, and why it is illogical.

" 17"Do not think that I came to abolish the (A)Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

Exactly what I have been saying.

Verse 18 deals with prophetic fulfillment of end times eschatology mentioned in the Law, OT.

So you stop at the first verse? You don't read it in context? So when Jesus specifically says that not one letter of the law should pass away, he doesn't really mean it? Dismissing it simply doesn't work. Pretending that it is something it isn't, doesn't work.

More so, the whole idea of someone fulfilling the law was completely shown to be incorrect in the link I already posted for you.