What do Christians really think about the Qur'an

[Pegg]

Jesus made a deal with his disciples. He is talking about his disciples. He's not making a new covenant. That is not what that verse stated. It states that he made a deal with his disciples (which is why he says they will judge the twelve tribes, he isn't implying that all Christians will do that, only the disciples).

Again, not a new covenant, and not a covenant for everyone. It was not replacing the covenant with the Jews.

well they certainly understood him to mean that this would be replacing the mosaic law covenant

Hebrews 8:7-9 "6 But now [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second; 8 for he does find fault with the people when he says: “‘Look! There are days coming,’ says Jehovah, ‘and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their forefathers in [the] day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant, so that I stopped caring for them,’

 

[Blackheart]

Personally, I hold neither to actually be the word of God. I have no problem with people having faith one way or the other though. If you have faith that the Bible is the word of God, that is fine. But I don't really care for special pleading one way or the other. I figure, if you hold your holy book to be divine, I don't see how one can then logically say another doesn't have the chance to be as well.

Well the Quran seeks to be a continuation/addition to the bible but yet some of its teachings goes against both the Torah and the bible. Thats why I question its legitamacy. It must be said though that im only in the thinking process and have not yet fully established a concrete view in this regard.

 

[fallingblood]

The mosaic law is not half of the bible... the mosaic law is only 600 odd laws
Most of the Hebrew scriptures are the words of the prophets, songs used in worship and the history of the nation of Isreal and its people.

the mosaic laws only take up a tiny fraction of what is in the hebrew scriptures.

Wasn't talking about the Mosaic law. I was talking about the OT. I've stated that quite a few times now. The OT takes up more than half the Bible. And you seem to be forgetting that it is in your Bible.

contradictions and rough justice are enough to tell me that the Quran is not divine... if you can see Gods hand in it then you should follow it.

Maybe you should look at the Bible a little more. There are quite a few contradictions in the Bible as well. And more than it's fair share of rough justice. By your reasoning, the Bible can't be divine either.

 

[fallingblood]

well they certainly understood him to mean that this would be replacing the mosaic law covenant

First, Hebrews does not show the opinion of the disciples of Jesus. So you can not say that they certainly understood him to mean that it would be replacing the Mosaic Law covenant.

Second, Hebrews still says that the covenant would be with the Jews, not the gentiles.

Third, we have no idea who even wrote Hebrews. As far as we know, it could have been a "false prophet."

Fourth, it did not say it would replace the laws. Actually, the implication is that the laws would be kept, as God speaks about his laws.

Fifth and final. The verses are talking about something in the future. There isn't a suggestion that it has already come, and it most certainly hadn't come by the time of Jesus.

Just as a side note, the laws were given by God. They are God's laws. If he didn't want them to be followed, he never would have given them in the first place.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Well the Quran seeks to be a continuation/addition to the bible but yet some of its teachings goes against both the Torah and the bible. Thats why I question its legitamacy. It must be said though that im only in the thinking process and have not yet fully established a concrete view in this regard.

Can I ask what teachings in the Qur'an go against the Tanakh exactly?

 

[Pegg]

Wasn't talking about the Mosaic law. I was talking about the OT. I've stated that quite a few times now. The OT takes up more than half the Bible. And you seem to be forgetting that it is in your Bible.

you seem to be using the OT and Mosaic Law interchangeably...they are not one in the same. We can still use the OT without the mosaic law because the hebrew scriptures provide history, prophecy & counsel...these are all beneficial to understanding Christs role as the messiah, what Gods standards are and how he views certain things. Really, the hebrew scriptures add to our understanding of who God is and gives us the evidence that Jesus is the promised Messiah. It would be very hard to prove that without the OT.

Maybe you should look at the Bible a little more. There are quite a few contradictions in the Bible as well. And more than it's fair share of rough justice. By your reasoning, the Bible can't be divine either.

If rough justice comes at the hand of God, then im ok with that because his judgment is righteous....but when it comes at the hands of men, then I dont trust it because people can be corrupted, they do not take all circumstances into account and they cannot see into a persons heart the way God does. God is merciful, men are not.

 

[fallingblood]

you seem to be using the OT and Mosaic Law interchangeably...they are not one in the same. We can still use the OT without the mosaic law because the hebrew scriptures provide history, prophecy & counsel...these are all beneficial to understanding Christs role as the messiah, what Gods standards are and how he views certain things. Really, the hebrew scriptures add to our understanding of who God is and gives us the evidence that Jesus is the promised Messiah. It would be very hard to prove that without the OT.

Actually, it is very hard to prove that Jesus is the promised Messiah when looking at the OT from a non-Christian bias. Very little, if anything, in the OT supports the idea that Jesus is the Messiah. Actually, a better argument is shown for the idea that Jesus is not the Messiah.

As for using the OT and Mosaic Law interchangeably, I did no such thing. However, even forgetting about the Mosaic law for a second, I can still use, by using the technique you used for the Quran (taking verses out of context), the OT to support many evils or harsh actions.

However, ignoring the Mosaic Laws is not logical for a Christian to do, as the Bible, never says that one should do such a thing. Actually, by ignoring the Mosaic laws, it destroys the idea of a divinely inspired work. If it was divinely inspired, then why would God have so much written about the Laws, and how to keep them, and then later basically say, "well, that was a mistake, just forget about it."

If rough justice comes at the hand of God, then im ok with that because his judgment is righteous....but when it comes at the hands of men, then I dont trust it because people can be corrupted, they do not take all circumstances into account and they cannot see into a persons heart the way God does. God is merciful, men are not.

So the rough justice we see God command in the OT is okay. But when it comes to a book you don't considered divine, then the rough justice commanded by God isn't okay? That is hypocritical.

And if people can be corrupted, you must accept that it is possible that the people who wrote the Bible had been corrupted as well.

Finally, if God commands the rough justice, as in explicitly instructs his follower to perform that rough justice, would that not be coming from the hand of God?

Your argument is fraught with contradictions, and holes.

 

[Pegg]

However, ignoring the Mosaic Laws is not logical for a Christian to do, as the Bible, never says that one should do such a thing. Actually, by ignoring the Mosaic laws, it destroys the idea of a divinely inspired work. If it was divinely inspired, then why would God have so much written about the Laws, and how to keep them, and then later basically say, "well, that was a mistake, just forget about it."

they were not a mistake and i've never once said that we should not consider them to be valuable. They are valuable because they show us Gods standards. However, the mosaic law required retribution and punishment for any who intentionally, or otherwise, broke any of the laws....the sacrificial system was the way to make atonement for sins against the mosaic laws, except of course for sins punishable with death.

Christians have been freed from that aspect of the law because Christ has become their 'sacrifice for sins'
We make atonement for our sins through the blood of Christ and for that reason the covenant he instituted is a 'better' covenant because it gives us the opportunity to repent and be forgiven without having to be punished with death. The isrealites who sinned were put to death under the mosaic law under some circumstances....it doesnt have to be that way for christians.

So the rough justice we see God command in the OT is okay. But when it comes to a book you don't considered divine, then the rough justice commanded by God isn't okay? That is hypocritical.

even God was not happy with the rough justice of the mosaic law, however it was there to teach mankind the seriousness of crimes against God...that they lead to death. Sin brings forth death and that mosaic law highlighted that fact.

This is why he promised through Jeremiah that he would conclude a new and better arrangement for people when the Messiah arrived. Through their faith in the Messiah, by his sacrifice, they could get atonement for their sins and thus have a righteous standing before God.

 

[fallingblood]

they were not a mistake and i've never once said that we should not consider them to be valuable. They are valuable because they show us Gods standards. However, the mosaic law required retribution and punishment for any who intentionally, or otherwise, broke any of the laws....the sacrificial system was the way to make atonement for sins against the mosaic laws, except of course for sins punishable with death.

So then you admit that God does in fact give a retribution system. So then how can you criticize Islam for doing the same thing? The answer is special pleading.

Also, the Mosaic law was much more than that. It was a whole guideline for life.

Christians have been freed from that aspect of the law because Christ has become their 'sacrifice for sins'
We make atonement for our sins through the blood of Christ and for that reason the covenant he instituted is a 'better' covenant because it gives us the opportunity to repent and be forgiven without having to be punished with death. The isrealites who sinned were put to death under the mosaic law under some circumstances....it doesnt have to be that way for christians.

Jews no longer practice sacrifices either, greatly because the Temple was destroyed. And again, that was very little of the Mosaic Laws. So, by what you're saying, you're only freed from a minuscule part of the Law. Thus, you can't ignore the rest of it.

Also, some of those laws were meant for when they actually had a kingdom. They were laws given by God, to rule the kingdom.

Really though, taking a few laws out of context, and trying to justify your idea simply doesn't make sense. Because really, it doesn't have to be that way for Jews either.

And again, you've never even shown that there is a new covenant, and that covenant abolished the Laws. So really, the whole argument is void until you can show a new covenant.

even God was not happy with the rough justice of the mosaic law, however it was there to teach mankind the seriousness of crimes against God...that they lead to death. Sin brings forth death and that mosaic law highlighted that fact.

So God made a mistake? If he was not happy with his own law, the only conclusion is that he made a mistake. Because if he knows all, he obviously would have known that he would end up not liking his own law. That just poses so many problems.

Also, you are taking a few laws out of context to support your idea. Mosaic law did not highlight the idea that sin brought for death. We can prove this very simply. How do the kosher laws highlight that sin brings for death? They don't.
[quote
This is why he promised through Jeremiah that he would conclude a new and better arrangement for people when the Messiah arrived. Through their faith in the Messiah, by his sacrifice, they could get atonement for their sins and thus have a righteous standing before God.[/QUOTE]There is no reference in Jeremiah to a suffering Messiah. That in itself rules Jesus out. Second, Jesus didn't fulfill the Messianic expectations, based on scripture. So if Jesus is not the Messiah, Jeremiah does not make reference to him, and there is no new covenant yet.

 

[Pegg]

So then you admit that God does in fact give a retribution system. So then how can you criticize Islam for doing the same thing? The answer is special pleading.

He gave a system for men to administer his justice in the past,yes ...but with the installation of Christianity he gave himself the sole responsibility of meting out punishment and judgments. He took on that role himself.

God took that system away and replaced it with something better...then Muhammad came along 700 years later and re-introduced an old system administered by men again.

Also, the Mosaic law was much more than that. It was a whole guideline for life.

yes, and the guidline was that the whole mosaic law hung on the principle of Love for God and love for neighbour... a person who loved God would seek to live by his standards and would not need to be forced to adhere to a written code of conduct

this is why God removed the mosaic law code... he was removing the 'obligation' to obey because he wants people to worship him from the heart. This is why he says he will establish a 'new nation' who hearts have his laws inscribed upon them....this new nation will be people who actually obey God because they 'want' to obey and not because they they will be punished if they dont.

Jews no longer practice sacrifices either, greatly because the Temple was destroyed. And again, that was very little of the Mosaic Laws. So, by what you're saying, you're only freed from a minuscule part of the Law. Thus, you can't ignore the rest of it.

a deeper spiritual point to think about here is that the temple represented Gods presence. By God allowing it to be destroyed, he was showing that he no longer presided in the temple...this is why the priesthood came to its finish because he no longer accepted the mediation of that priesthood between himself and the people. A better mediation was now in place.

being freed from the law meant that God no longer required anyone to follow the prescriptions of justice and formalities that the priests administered.... so yes, freed from that minuscule part of the law but not from the standards and morals that the law set.

 

[fallingblood]

He gave a system for men to administer his justice in the past,yes ...but with the installation of Christianity he gave himself the sole responsibility of meting out punishment and judgments. He took on that role himself.

God took that system away and replaced it with something better...then Muhammad came along 700 years later and re-introduced an old system administered by men again.

You have not shown that this system was ever abolished. Jesus never advocated such an idea. His disciples never advocated such an idea. The simple fact that God had given a system for justice (which again, is not solely what the Mosaic law is about) shows that God can and does give justice systems.

Finally, you are over simplifying Mosaic law and what the Quran teaches. Who are you to say that during the time of Muhammad, God felt that those individuals needed a divine justice system, just like the Jews had? Who are you to say that Muhammad was the one to reintroduce such a system, and that it was not God? That clearly shows a huge amount of bias. Finally, and the key point, you've never shown that the old system, that the Mosaic Laws were every abolished. Until you can show that to be true, any and all arguments you have are void.

You must first show that the Mosaic Law has been abolished before any logical defense can be made. Your whole argument rests on just that; the abolishment of the Mosaic Law.

yes, and the guidline was that the whole mosaic law hung on the principle of Love for God and love for neighbour... a person who loved God would seek to live by his standards and would not need to be forced to adhere to a written code of conduct

this is why God removed the mosaic law code... he was removing the 'obligation' to obey because he wants people to worship him from the heart. This is why he says he will establish a 'new nation' who hearts have his laws inscribed upon them....this new nation will be people who actually obey God because they 'want' to obey and not because they they will be punished if they dont.

And here is a major problem. Your lack of understanding as to why Jews follow God's law. It has nothing to do with being punished if they don't follow it. It has to do with loving God. They follow the law because God gave it to them. And it is that point that you completely missed. You need to understand the reason why Jews follow the law in order to criticize it.

The Laws are kept because the Jews love God. It is from their hearts, that it is kept. So there was no need to remove some "obligation" as there was no obligation. It was an act of love. God gave the commandments, and out of love, the Jews follow them. So your argument fails miserably since you did not recognize the purpose of the Law, or the reason that Jews follow it. Which is very clear when you describe it as an obligation, and that Jews had to follow it so they wouldn't be punished.

As for the New Nation, it is talking about Israel. When God speaks of creating a New Nation, he is referring to the Jews, which is clear from the context. More so, the Messiah must come before that, and really, there is no reason to believe that he has. Unless you can show why Jesus is the Messiah, then the point is void.

Since Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecy (and you can't say that he is going to in the future, with his second coming, because even if that is true, it hasn't happened, and thus there is no reason to believe that to be true), and thus failed as the Messiah. That is why the Jews reject him, and rightfully so.

a deeper spiritual point to think about here is that the temple represented Gods presence. By God allowing it to be destroyed, he was showing that he no longer presided in the temple...this is why the priesthood came to its finish because he no longer accepted the mediation of that priesthood between himself and the people. A better mediation was now in place.

There is a huge problem with that idea. First, the Temple had been destroyed once before. Yet, God promised to have it rebuilt. So your scenario doesn't work as we know that even though God intended for the Temple to be there (as it was built for a second time, which God obviously allowed), it shows no reason to assume that he no longer had a use for it.

More so, it is widely believed that the Temple will be rebuilt again, when the Messiah comes. Actually, that is a must I believe. So God obviously has a need for the Temple.

Also, I don't really understand what you mean by better mediation. Because Jews could and still do, have access to God. The Temple was not the only place God was. You may want to read up on the priesthood and the Temple.

being freed from the law meant that God no longer required anyone to follow the prescriptions of justice and formalities that the priests administered.... so yes, freed from that minuscule part of the law but not from the standards and morals that the law set.

Justice and formalities that the priests administered? I don't think you understand what the Law is. There was much more to the law than I think you are assuming.

 

[ResLight]

Another man also calculated the timing of Christs 2nd coming...Charles Taze Russell. The March 1880 edition of the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations”

And im sure you know something very significant happened in that year.

Actually, Charles Taze Russell wasn't the one who "calculated" the timing of Christ's 2nd coming. It was N. H. Barbour who calculated, using several line of time prophecies that Christ's return is 1874. Russell accepted this in 1876 (two years after the event), and held to that belief until he died in 1916.

It was also Barbour who identified 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times. Barbour thought, however, that 1914 was to see the end of the "time of trouble." Some Bible Students objected to this, stating that the end of the Gentile Times would see the beginning, not the end of the time of trouble. Russell accepted Barbour's thought on this until 1904 (ten years before 1914), when accepted the view that 1914 was not to be the end, but the beginning, of the time of trouble.

 

[Pegg]

You have not shown that this system was ever abolished. Jesus never advocated such an idea. His disciples never advocated such an idea. The simple fact that God had given a system for justice (which again, is not solely what the Mosaic law is about) shows that God can and does give justice systems.

Hebrews 7:11 If, then, perfection were really through the Levitical priesthood, (for with it as a feature the people were given the Law,) what further need would there be for another priest to arise according to the manner of Mel‧chiz′e‧dek and not said to be according to the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law.


Colossians 2:13 "...He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake. ...16 Therefore let no man judge YOU in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath; 17 for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ"

Finally, you are over simplifying Mosaic law and what the Quran teaches. Who are you to say that during the time of Muhammad, God felt that those individuals needed a divine justice system, just like the Jews had?

because at that time there was no priesthood...the temple had been destroyed by Rome centuries earlier and the priesthood did not exist. The mosaic law stipulated that it was the responsibility of the priests to administer it... without the priests, who would administer it? Non Priests? or priests of a pagan religion?

The worship of God had changed... he opened the door to all nations through christianity and christianity had no such justice system.

You must first show that the Mosaic Law has been abolished before any logical defense can be made. Your whole argument rests on just that; the abolishment of the Mosaic Law.

Ephesians 2:13 But now in union with Christ Jesus YOU who were once far off have come to be near by the blood of the Christ. 14 For he is our peace, he who made the two parties one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. 15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples in union with himself into one new man and make peace; 16 and that he might fully reconcile both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself. 17 And he came and declared the good news of peace to YOU, the ones far off, and peace to those near, 18 because through him we, both peoples, have the approach to the Father by one spirit

Hebrews 7:18 Certainly, then, there occurs a setting aside of the preceding commandment on account of its weakness and ineffectiveness. 19 For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in besides of a better hope did, through which we are drawing near to God.

Acts 13:38 “Let it therefore be known to YOU, brothers, that through this One a forgiveness of sins is being published to YOU; 39 and that from all the things from which YOU could not be declared guiltless by means of the law of Moses, everyone who believes is declared guiltless by means of this One

Romans 8:1-4 Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation. 2 For the law of that spirit which gives life in union with Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For, there being an incapability on the part of the Law, while it was weak through the flesh, God, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk, not in accord with the flesh, but in accord with the spirit

And here is a major problem. Your lack of understanding as to why Jews follow God's law. It has nothing to do with being punished if they don't follow it. It has to do with loving God. They follow the law because God gave it to them. And it is that point that you completely missed. You need to understand the reason why Jews follow the law in order to criticize it.

look at the history of Isreal and you should know that the nation left the law of moses on many occasions. The nation began as 12 tribes but ended up as only two because 10 of them chose to become apostate.
Im sorry but I think you misunderstand that the Isrealites were 'chosen' ... they did not choose God themselves. He came to them while they were in Egypt... they didnt go to him.

Yes i agree that many of them loved God...we have many wonderful examples of faith amongst the Isrealites. Jesus was a jew who loved God and his law and was willing to die for it... so yes, there are many fine examples of jews who love Gods law.

So your argument fails miserably since you did not recognize the purpose of the Law, or the reason that Jews follow it. Which is very clear when you describe it as an obligation, and that Jews had to follow it so they wouldn't be punished.

From the Apostle Paul who was a Pharisee himself and understood more about the law then any jew today can understand:
Galatians 3:23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.

So really, the Mosaic Law was designed to lead the Jews to the Messiah. Once the Christian congregation was formed under Christ, the “tutor” served no further purpose. They had the realization of the law with them.

There is a huge problem with that idea. First, the Temple had been destroyed once before. Yet, God promised to have it rebuilt. So your scenario doesn't work as we know that even though God intended for the Temple to be there (as it was built for a second time, which God obviously allowed), it shows no reason to assume that he no longer had a use for it.

Even after the temple was rebuilt the first time, there was no Isrealite king sitting on the throne. The last king to represent Gods rule was Zedekiah... since then there has been no representative of God at the temple. The reason being is because God decreed that no one would be given the scepter until the Messiah arrived.
The next king was to be the Messiah. And the seat would be in the heavens... not on the earth which is why God permitted the temple and priesthood to be completely destroyed. He has no need of it anymore.

More so, it is widely believed that the Temple will be rebuilt again, when the Messiah comes. Actually, that is a must I believe. So God obviously has a need for the Temple.

The temple already has been rebuilt. The physical temple was a representation of the heavenly temple. Listen to Pauls explanation about the physical temple in Jerusalem and how it corresponds with the heavenly temple. The most holy compartment was only for the high priest to enter because it is where Gods presence was located.

Hebrews 9:3 For its part, then, the former [covenant] used to have ordinances of sacred service and [its] mundane holy place. 2 For there was constructed a first tent [compartment] in which were the lamp stand and also the table and the display of the loaves; and it is called “the Holy Place.” 3 But behind the second curtain was the tent [compartment] called “the Most Holy.” 6 After these things had been constructed this way, the priests enter the first tent [compartment] at all times to perform the sacred services; 7 but into the second [compartment] the high priest alone enters once a year, not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of ignorance of the people. ...10 They were legal requirements pertaining to the flesh and were imposed until the appointed time to set things straight.

Paul now shows how Jesus entered into the heavenly temple to appear before God as a sacrifice for sins
11 However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, 12 he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance [for us]. ...24 For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.

The reality of the physical temple was heaven itself... where God and his throne are located.

 

[ResLight]

Yes...I remember the name well...I believe he was Judge Taze Russell of the Hebrew (?) University (It has been twenty years...so memory fails). I recall the name because he corresponded with William Miller following 'The Great Dissapointment' of 1844. I am paraphrasing but in essence what he advised Miller was that his maths/timeline was solidly founded...but that the expectation (descent from clouds) was erroneous.
Prompted by Millers work Russell went on to make his own predictions.

As far as I know, Russell had no communication at all with William Miller. He was, however, tutored by several of the Second Adventists groups (not to be confused with the 7th Day Adventists). The chronology and time prophecies studies that Russell used and adapted were basically that of N. H. Barbour, who had adopted and adjusted on Miller's earlier work.

Although Russell had a lot of private tutoring as well as self-study, he never attended an university, and never carried any title of "Judge". I think perhaps this might actually be confused with Joseph Rutherford. Rutherford did not a college or university, but I have not been able to find out where he attended, to study law. As a lawyer, he once substituted for a judge, and as a result, he was afterwards called "Judge" Rutherford.

As best as I have been to determine from what Russell wrote, around 1872 Russell came to the conclusion that, since Christ had sacrificed his flesh, his humanity, that Christ would not return in the flesh. Barbour, around 1873, wrote something similar to this, although he seemed to not reckon this at that time as related to to his expectation of Christ's return in 1874. After the fall of 1874, he then realized that if Christ returned, he would not be seen visibly, since he is no longer a human being. Russell wrote later, that around 1876, he came across Barbour's findings, and was surprised that Barbour had come to similar conclusions as he. As a result of meeting with Barbour in 1876, Russell accepted Barbour's chronology and his conclusions regarding time prophecy, that is, Russell accepted that Christ had returned in 1874, and that the times of the Gentile would end in 1914. As I stated before, in 1904, Russell adjusted his view so as to accept that of some of his associates who had concluded that 1914 would see, not the end of the time of trouble, but rather the beginning of the time of trouble.


See the Supplement to the first issue of the Watch Tower to see what Russell himself wrote about that time.
It seems I am not allow to post urls so I will post the url without the /s and dots
ctr reslight net ?p=346

 

[Wombat]

As far as I know, Russell had no communication at all with William Miller.
Although Russell had a lot of private tutoring as well as self-study, he never attended an university, and never carried any title of "Judge". I think perhaps this might actually be confused with Joseph Rutherford.

Thank you
It has been twenty years since I read ‘The Great Controversy’ by Ellen White and I have indeed confused Taze Russell with “Judge”Joseph Rutherford. Thanks again for the correction.

After lengthy Google I find it was neither man that I recalled addressing Miller but rather-“The learned late Geo. Bush, Prof. of Hebrew and Oriental Literature in the New York City University, in a letter addressed to Mr. Miller, and published in the Advent Herald for March, 1844, made some very important admissions relative to his calculations of the prophetic times. Mr. Bush says:--
"Neither is it to be objected, as I conceive, to yourself or your friends, that you have devoted much time and attention to the study of the chronology of prophecy, and have labored much to determine the commencing and closing dates of its great periods. If these periods are actually given by the Holy Ghost in the prophetic books, it was doubtless with the design that they should be studied, and probably, in the end, fully understood; and no man is to be charged with presumptuous folly who reverently makes the attempt to do this. On this point, I have myself no charges to bring against you. Nay, I am even ready to go so far as to say that I do not conceive your errors on the subject of chronology to be at all of a serious nature, or, in fact, to be very wide of the truth. In taking a day as the prophetical term for a year, I believe you are sustained by the soundest exegesis, as well as fortified by the high names of Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Kirby, Scott, Keith, and a host of others, who have long since come to substantially your conclusions on this head. They all agree that the leading periods mentioned by Daniel and John do actually expire about this age of the world, and it would be a strange logic that would convict you of heresy for holding in effect the same views which stand forth so prominent in the notices of these eminent divines. Your error, as I apprehend, lies in another direction than your chronology."

William Miller Biography

While looking for that quote I came upon a dozen+ from Ruth White (and other writers of the period) along the same lines...all convinced (even post the predicted date) that 1844 was “sustained by the soundest exegesis”.-

“I saw that the disappointment of those who believed in the coming of the Lord in 1844, was not equal to the disappointment of the disciples. Prophecy was fulfilled in the first and second angels' messages. They were given at the right time, and accomplished the work God designed they should”

“I was then shown what did take place in heaven as the prophetic periods ended in 1844. I saw that as the ministration of Jesus in the Holy place ended, and he closed the door of that apartment, a great darkness settled upon those who had heard, and had rejected the messages of Christ's coming, and they lost sight of him. “ Ruth White.


"My principles in brief, are, that Jesus Christ will come again to this earth, cleanse, purify, and take possession of the same, with all the saints, sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844."2 William Miller

So....I will dare ask again the (thrice asked) question no one seems willing or inclined to answer or entertain-

"Did anything of religious significance happen in that year- 1844?"

Anything paralell or pertinent to Millers prediction and the well reasoned expectation of thousands of others?

 

[Pegg]

Actually, Charles Taze Russell wasn't the one who "calculated" the timing of Christ's 2nd coming. It was N. H. Barbour who calculated, using several line of time prophecies that Christ's return is 1874. Russell accepted this in 1876 (two years after the event), and held to that belief until he died in 1916.

It was also Barbour who identified 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times. Barbour thought, however, that 1914 was to see the end of the "time of trouble." Some Bible Students objected to this, stating that the end of the Gentile Times would see the beginning, not the end of the time of trouble. Russell accepted Barbour's thought on this until 1904 (ten years before 1914), when accepted the view that 1914 was not to be the end, but the beginning, of the time of trouble.

you are right, there were several bible students before Russell who also pointed to the year 1914 as a significant year...although they all had different reasons for saying so.
In 1823, John A. Brown calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length and connected the “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman also pointed to 1914 but he also gave an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. And in 1870, another publication edited by Joseph Seiss pointed to 1914 as a significant date. So there were many who were able to discern from the scriptures that 1914 was significant.

Barbour used chronology compiled by Christopher Bowen, an english clergyman whereby he identified the start of the Gentile Times with King Zedekiah’s removal from kingship as foretold at Ezekiel 21:25, 26, and pointed out that 1914 would mark the end of the Gentile Times.

After Russell read Barbors paper about 1914 he met with Barbor and they discussed these things together but they were not really sure exactly what would occur at that time. Some thought the earth would be destroyed, others thought differently...Russell believed it had something to do with Christs enthronement in heaven which he wrote about in 'Studies in the Scriptures'

That view of Christs enthronement in heaven is still the JW view today.

 

[Pegg]

So....I will dare ask again the (thrice asked) question no one seems willing or inclined to answer or entertain-

"Did anything of religious significance happen in that year- 1844?"

Anything paralell or pertinent to Millers prediction and the well reasoned expectation of thousands of others?

we are not aware of anything significant which fits with any bible chronology, or prophecy, about 1844.

The Millerites were expecting Christ to return in that year... but he didnt. I believe they formed the beginning of the 7th day Adventist church (?)

 

[Wombat]

we are not aware of anything significant which fits with any bible chronology, or prophecy, about 1844.
The Millerites were expecting Christ to return in that year... but he didnt.

Dear Pegg....There are currently 5-6 million people who believe, on the basis of their own independent investigation, that on May 23, 1844 the Second Coming was declared and subsequently fulfilled.

The clear alignments of the prophetic dates ought not be dismissed as mere coincidence...the claim made in that year is worthy of investigation...even if, as with the claim laid by Jesus, it does not match local expectation

"On May 23, 1844, the Bab ("gate" in Arabic) announced that He was the bearer of a long-promised Divine Revelation destined to transform the spiritual life of the human race.
His role, He said, was to be the portal through which the universally anticipated Revelation of God would appear in the form of another Messenger. This Messenger from God would be far greater: He would usher in the age of peace and justice promised in Islam, Judaism, Christianity and all the other world religions.
The Bab referred to the Messenger as "Him Whom God shall make manifest" and said, "No words of Mine can adequately describe Him nor. . . do justice to His Cause."
That Messenger was Baha'u'llah."

Baha

Báb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I invite you to investigate with all the open minded vigour and scrutiny of the twelve disciples.

"What hath God wrought" Samuel F. B. Morse, May 24, 1844
All the best.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

Before I ever read the Qur'an I was taught that it was the work of the devil by many christian religions. It seams that the majority of christians see the Qur'an as being a negative or bad book. Do any christians thing the Qur'an is part of scripture or do they mostly think it is an evil book.

Just another book a person can use to say I'm right and your wrong.

 

[fallingblood]

Hebrews 7:11 If, then, perfection were really through the Levitical priesthood, (for with it as a feature the people were given the Law,) what further need would there be for another priest to arise according to the manner of Mel‧chiz′e‧dek and not said to be according to the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law.

Can you show me that the priesthood changed? We don't even know who wrote Hebrews. Again, it could have been a "false prophet."

And again, this has nothing to do with Jesus or the disciples. If Jesus really issued in something new, you would assume that Jesus and his disciples would have some idea. Which you still haven't shown. And you haven't shown that Jesus created a new priesthood.

Colossians 2:13 "...He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake. ...16 Therefore let no man judge YOU in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath; 17 for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ"

Well Christ specifically stated that you are supposed to follow the law. And this is not a passage that says that the law is abolished. More so, Paul taught many thing contradictory to Jesus. So I wouldn't say he is the best representative.

because at that time there was no priesthood...the temple had been destroyed by Rome centuries earlier and the priesthood did not exist. The mosaic law stipulated that it was the responsibility of the priests to administer it... without the priests, who would administer it? Non Priests? or priests of a pagan religion?

The worship of God had changed... he opened the door to all nations through christianity and christianity had no such justice system.

Thus you show your previous post wrong. If there was no priesthood, then there was no new priesthood, as Hebrews describes. Thus, your argument fails, and the laws need to be practiced.

Also, the Law did not have to be administered to by Priests. If that was true, there is no way that Jews could now follow that law. The fact that they still follow that law shows that you're wrong.

As for God opening up worship to all nations, that had already happened. Pagans, would worship God before. There was no stipulation on that. Finally, Christianity may not have a justice system now, but it was built upon one. Christianity started as a sect of Judaism, with it's leader, Jesus being a Jew who followed the law and commanded his followers to do the same.

The fact that Christians no longer have a justice system is of little matter, because it was a later invention.

[/I]Acts 13:38 “Let it therefore be known to YOU, brothers, that through this One a forgiveness of sins is being published to YOU; 39 and that from all the things from which YOU could not be declared guiltless by means of the law of Moses, everyone who believes is declared guiltless by means of this One

The other two verses are two far distant from Jesus. Again, Jesus stated exactly the opposite, so those verses are contradicting Jesus. Which causes a problem in itself. As for this verse, which is closer to the story of Jesus, never states that the Law is abolished.

Romans 8:1-4]

This one also doesn't state the the law is abolished. Just wanted to point that out.

If the Bible states that the law is abolished, it is clearly a contradiction. You then have to explain that contradiction. Jesus clearly stated that the law was not abolished. Thus, when later writers state the law is abolished, they are contradicting Jesus. For me, Jesus is probably the better man to side with in this, as he is the founder of the religion.

look at the history of Isreal and you should know that the nation left the law of moses on many occasions. The nation began as 12 tribes but ended up as only two because 10 of them chose to become apostate.
Im sorry but I think you misunderstand that the Isrealites were 'chosen' ... they did not choose God themselves. He came to them while they were in Egypt... they didnt go to him.

Yes i agree that many of them loved God...we have many wonderful examples of faith amongst the Isrealites. Jesus was a jew who loved God and his law and was willing to die for it... so yes, there are many fine examples of jews who love Gods law.

I think you misunderstand why some tribes left. It was a political matter.

Also, I never stated that the Jews chose God. I stated that they follow the Law because they Love God. Your statement does not address anything I really said.

From the Apostle Paul who was a Pharisee himself and understood more about the law then any jew today can understand:

That is just ignorant. Paul may have understood the law, but Jews can understand the law just as well as he can. And probably better now since there are more sources on the subject.

So really, the Mosaic Law was designed to lead the Jews to the Messiah. Once the Christian congregation was formed under Christ, the “tutor” served no further purpose. They had the realization of the law with them.

That is ridiculous. You are just showing you have no idea what the Law is about. It was not designed to lead the Jews to the Messiah. That doesn't even make sense. Paul, whatever he was, simply made things up. On various occasions, it is clear he even contradicted what Jesus stated. I would even argue that if Jesus knew Paul, there would be a serious problem. Because of Jesus, his followers need to be Jews who followed the law.

By this comment though, I would have to say that Paul understood nothing about the law. More so, how does the Kosher laws lead Jews to the Messiah? It simply makes no logical sense.

Even after the temple was rebuilt the first time, there was no Isrealite king sitting on the throne. The last king to represent Gods rule was Zedekiah... since then there has been no representative of God at the temple. The reason being is because God decreed that no one would be given the scepter until the Messiah arrived.
The next king was to be the Messiah. And the seat would be in the heavens... not on the earth which is why God permitted the temple and priesthood to be completely destroyed. He has no need of it anymore.

Well, then you are ignoring scripture. If you want to rewrite the Bible, that's up to you. But then there is no need to really discuss anything with you as it isn't very honest on your part.

There did not need be a king (which there were actually Kings after Zedekiah, during the Hasmonean revolt), for the Temple to have God indwelling in it. Also, the Messiah was suppose to set up the Kingdom right here on Earth. The Kingdom of God was not in heaven, it was on Earth. So your logic fails, as if the Kingdom is suppose to be on Earth (which was the understanding about the Kingdom of God) then obviously, God would not have permitted the Temple and priesthood to be destroyed. Well at least not for that reason.

And have you thought that just maybe, God had no hand in it? Bad things happen.

The temple already has been rebuilt. The physical temple was a representation of the heavenly temple. Listen to Pauls explanation about the physical temple in Jerusalem and how it corresponds with the heavenly temple. The most holy compartment was only for the high priest to enter because it is where Gods presence was located.

The reality of the physical temple was heaven itself... where God and his throne are located.

Paul never wrote Hebrews. We have no idea who did.

Second, the temple has not been rebuilt. The Temple needs to be rebuilt on Earth. That is part of God's promise.