What do you think Bible or Islamic texts wants the reader to think?

[Lars]

Well, MY Bible does not contain the New Testament. The way it looks to me, the New Testament has a completely different message than the Tanakh (OT), and that in fact the two messages are incompatible.

The Message of the Torah is simply the covenant between the People of Israel and God -- the 613 commandments. The text says we are to be a nation of priests. The prophets hammer the idea of obedience, obedience, obedience, urging Israel to repent of its sins and return to God's ways. The second most important message would be the mercy of God, that he forgives, that he casts our sins into the sea and remembers them no more, if we return to his ways.

Now, these texts are written by Jews about Jews for Jews. However, there are many non-Jews in this world that gain inspiration from them. If they read them at face value, without superimposing a non-existent Christian theology upon them, I imagine they would come away with an idea of the importance to God how we treat each other.

Wasnt Judaism more a tribe of israel though? Although it does say Jesus was from Kingdom of Judah, it just overall seems there could be many factions. But Tanakh is what Hebrew bible is called from what i understand.

Though Bible has also gotten some criticism of changing some stuff like "Young virgin" which is "young woman" originally. So its interesting

 

[Brian2]

Wasnt Judaism more a tribe of israel though? Although it does say Jesus was from Kingdom of Judah, it just overall seems there could be many factions. But Tanakh is what Hebrew bible is called from what i understand.

Though Bible has also gotten some criticism of changing some stuff like "Young virgin" which is "young woman" originally. So its interesting

I am told that in the right context the "young woman" can be "young virgin" and have found that the context is right in a prophetic sense to do that with the young woman of Isa 7:14 when the child she bears is the child of Isa 9:6, the Messiah, especially when Jesus was born of a virgin.

 

[Brian2]

Well, MY Bible does not contain the New Testament. The way it looks to me, the New Testament has a completely different message than the Tanakh (OT), and that in fact the two messages are incompatible.

The Message of the Torah is simply the covenant between the People of Israel and God -- the 613 commandments. The text says we are to be a nation of priests. The prophets hammer the idea of obedience, obedience, obedience, urging Israel to repent of its sins and return to God's ways. The second most important message would be the mercy of God, that he forgives, that he casts our sins into the sea and remembers them no more, if we return to his ways.

Now, these texts are written by Jews about Jews for Jews. However, there are many non-Jews in this world that gain inspiration from them. If they read them at face value, without superimposing a non-existent Christian theology upon them, I imagine they would come away with an idea of the importance to God how we treat each other.

The New Testament also is about the importance of how we treat each other.
Repentance and obedience are also important in the New Testament.
The forgiveness of God and His casting out sin is also there in the New Testament.
The New Testament is the New Covenant however and the coming of that is taught in the Tanakh.
The Priesthood changes to the priesthood of Melchizadech (Psalm 110) with Jesus the High Priest who intercedes for us.
The Law changes with a new priesthood.
The New Covenant is for the Jews and was offered to the Jews and still is but on the rejection by most of the Jews the Word of God, the Law, has gone out from Jerusalem to the whole world. (Isa 2:3)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Wasnt Judaism more a tribe of israel though? Although it does say Jesus was from Kingdom of Judah, it just overall seems there could be many factions. But Tanakh is what Hebrew bible is called from what i understand.

Though Bible has also gotten some criticism of changing some stuff like "Young virgin" which is "young woman" originally. So its interesting

JudaISM is the religion, the covenant. JuDAH is one of the twelve tribes. JuDAH is also the name of the Southern Kingdom, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and refugees from all the other tribes that had fled when the Northern Kingdom was conquered.

Jesus was a Jew, aka he was part of the People of Israel. This is because his mother was a Jew. A Jew is someone whose mom is a Jew or who has gone through a lawful conversion.

Christianity also makes claims that Jesus was of the TRIBE of Judah, a descendant of David. The problem is, unlike Jewish identity (which is maternal), Tribal identity is paternal, passed via the biological father. According to the gospels, Joseph was not the biological father, so his genealogy was worthless. Mary's genealogy is similarly worthless. Unless Christians can produce an earthly father who is paternally descended from David, their claims are without merit.

There were indeed many factions of Judaism, the religion, in those days. You had Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, the Zealots, and probably more. Given the practices of Jesus, such as that he washed his hands before meals, he would have been a Pharisee. There were two competing schools of Pharisees. Jesus' teaching were (with the exception of divorce) those of Hillel. The Pharisees who controlled the Sanhedrin during his ministry were those of Shammai, a much, much stricter interpretation. Best book on this is "Jesus the Pharisee" by Harvey Falk.

The New Testament quotes prophecy out of context (i.e. Hosea 11:1, which is about Israel, not the messiah), misquotes prophecy (i.e. Isaiah 7:14 which is rightly translated young woman, not virgin), and even makes up prophecy out of whole cloth (such as Matthew 2:23, He shall be called a Nazarene aka someone from the city of Nazareth.)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The New Testament also is about the importance of how we treat each other.
Repentance and obedience are also important in the New Testament.
The forgiveness of God and His casting out sin is also there in the New Testament.
The New Testament is the New Covenant however and the coming of that is taught in the Tanakh.
The Priesthood changes to the priesthood of Melchizadech (Psalm 110) with Jesus the High Priest who intercedes for us.
The Law changes with a new priesthood.
The New Covenant is for the Jews and was offered to the Jews and still is but on the rejection by most of the Jews the Word of God, the Law, has gone out from Jerusalem to the whole world. (Isa 2:3)

Really? Because when I talk to Christians, they say that Christianity is about believing in Jesus, that he died for their sins, rose from the dead, and will come again.

 

[firedragon]

Interms of psychology of it.

My assumption is this

Bible = Melevolent dictator. Mainly because there is biblical verse where physical punishment on a child is ok (assuming the context is if they dont listen)
Islamic texts = Dominance and slight sadomasochism (Sadomasochism is if you paint people or that stuff you go to hell, because image makers are cursed in sunni hadiths. Though not sure if some would argue this is in context to idol worship or literally) But i lay mostly weight on "Dominance part" where you are supposed to feel dominated and dominate with the islamic religion

But this is mainly my impression from reading or getting into it. I cant comment in Shia sources. But Sunni ones is the ones i have spent mostly time with. And Bible is more shorter so there is that.

But its mainly because of those psychological views that i find them interesting to read.

Whats your view?

Which particular, specific hadith are you speaking of? I ask because you are specifically speaking about the whole Bible, and "Ahadith" which are in my opinion not a very good comparison or platform. But nevertheless, I would like to know which specific hadith you are referring to.

 

[Brian2]

Really? Because when I talk to Christians, they say that Christianity is about believing in Jesus, that he died for their sins, rose from the dead, and will come again.

You said what the Hebrew scriptures were about and said that the New Testament was incompatible with that. I was showing that it is not incompatible.
The Hebrew scriptures speak of animals being sacrificed for sins and the New Testament speaks of the one sacrifice that does away with any need for other sacrifices ever again.
The Hebrew scriptures speak of the faith of Abraham and how God declared him righteous because of that. The New Testament speaks of faith for being declared righteous by God.
The Hebrew scriptures speak of the New Covenant and a righteous branch, David a king whom God would raise up and his name would be The LORD our righteousness or The LORD is our righteousness.
The New Testament speak of Jesus.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You said what the Hebrew scriptures were about and said that the New Testament was incompatible with that. I was showing that it is not incompatible.
The Hebrew scriptures speak of animals being sacrificed for sins and the New Testament speaks of the one sacrifice that does away with any need for other sacrifices ever again.
The Hebrew scriptures speak of the faith of Abraham and how God declared him righteous because of that. The New Testament speaks of faith for being declared righteous by God.
The Hebrew scriptures speak of the New Covenant and a righteous branch, David a king whom God would raise up and his name would be The LORD our righteousness or The LORD is our righteousness.
The New Testament speak of Jesus.

The New Testament contradicts the teachings of the Tanakh/Torah. The Torah clearly teaches the following of the Law, in order to receive the blessings of prosperity and the land of Canaan. Psalm 19 states that the Law is "perfect....sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb." Yet Paul teaches that the Law brings a curse. He teaches that circumcision is nothing and keeping the Sabbath is up to the individual, rather than being necessary for the Jew. These views, that of the Tanakh and those of Paul, are utterly incompatible. The Torah is agreed upon by both Christians and Jews to be the word of God, and is therefore the measuring reed to determine what else is orthodoxy -- and it therefore determines that the NT doesn't pass muster

The New Testament also teaches a new idea -- have faith in the messiah as a way to avoid punishment for sin. You don't find this anywhere in the Tanakh. It essentially replaces the teaching that what God considers important is obedience.

 

[Lars]

Which particular, specific hadith are you speaking of? I ask because you are specifically speaking about the whole Bible, and "Ahadith" which are in my opinion not a very good comparison or platform. But nevertheless, I would like to know which specific hadith you are referring to.

Its the whole thing. Sunni scriptures like Quran, hadiths and such are very much written the same way. Same as the bible is written in a certain way "Well New Testament is a little bit different but it follows the same formula"

 

[firedragon]

Sunni scriptures like Quran, hadiths and such are very much written the same way.

1. What do you mean by that statement? How could Quran and ahadith be written "the same way"?
2. In your OP you referred to a hadith that states "Sadomasochism is if you paint people or that stuff you go to hell, because image makers are cursed in sunni hadiths.". Which particular hadith are you referring to? I mean the exact hadith. Not "the whole thing" which is not specific, I mean which hadith? Book, reference number etc.

Thanks in advance.

 

[firedragon]

Though Bible has also gotten some criticism of changing some stuff like "Young virgin" which is "young woman" originally. So its interesting

Thats a translation error in the Septuagint. But there are more grave changes in the text, especially of the NT.

 

[Lars]

Thats a translation error in the Septuagint. But there are more grave changes in the text, especially of the NT.

The ending of Gospel of Mark and Trinity quote in John Gospel, think i heard it from Bart Ehrman, a very good scholar on this topic. Argued of being added to it in a sense.

 

[firedragon]

The ending of Gospel of Mark and Trinity quote in John Gospel, think i heard it from Bart Ehrman, a very good scholar on this topic. Argued of being added to it in a sense.

The long ending mark is a very known latter addition to the text. Trinity Quote is not in the Gospel of John, it is in the letter. And yes, it of course a well known latter addition. Its called Comma Johanneum. These are just two, there are many.

 

[infrabenji]

As a sufi Muslim i would say islam for me is the best that happen to me, and bo my focus is not on text telling me to harm others, islam to me is love and compassion

Edit: The scriptures are made for practitioner of Abrahamic religions so each one can find unity with God/Allah

That’s cool. I like that. I just had a long conversation with my Muslim friend who owns the gallery next to my fiancé’s. I was surprised to find out that Islam and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. I found the Muslim take on the story of Jesus and of Judas to be very fascinating. I’m surprised after reading the text for myself that Islam is so stigmatized by Christianity when Islam is very inclusive and seems to have no problem with Christianity. Do you think that’s some kind of hold over from the crusades or something?

 

[Spirit of Light]

That’s cool. I like that. I just had a long conversation with my Muslim friend who owns the gallery next to my fiancé’s. I was surprised to find out that Islam and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. I found the Muslim take on the story of Jesus and of Judas to be very fascinating. I’m surprised after reading the text for myself that Islam is so stigmatized by Christianity when Islam is very inclusive and seems to have no problem with Christianity. Do you think that’s some kind of hold over from the crusades or something?

I am happy you ask this
For a sufi, all the teaching back to Adam, Moses, Noah, Abraham ,Jesus, Muhammad and many more Prophets are important to understand, so of course a Muslim should not be against any other religions, especially the abrahamic

I can not answer for the part with crusaders

 

[Lars]

That’s cool. I like that. I just had a long conversation with my Muslim friend who owns the gallery next to my fiancé’s. I was surprised to find out that Islam and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. I found the Muslim take on the story of Jesus and of Judas to be very fascinating. I’m surprised after reading the text for myself that Islam is so stigmatized by Christianity when Islam is very inclusive and seems to have no problem with Christianity. Do you think that’s some kind of hold over from the crusades or something?

Well the idea is to dominate. The text islamic sunni texts makes that clear the more you read the language it uses. Like i can give you an example."We will promise them torments and suffering to the disbelievers, wow to them who rejects Allah`s message. But Allah is merciful, most wise"

Or another one
"Monks are not arrogant" and then "Force the people of the book on the narrow path"

So the main point is dominance. Its what i find interesting is all

 

[firedragon]

Well the idea is to dominate. The text islamic sunni texts makes that clear the more you read the language it uses. Like i can give you an example."We will promise them torments and suffering to the disbelievers, wow to them who rejects Allah`s message. But Allah is merciful, most wise"

Or another one
"Monks are not arrogant" and then "Force the people of the book on the narrow path"

So the main point is dominance. Its what i find interesting is all

Hmm, you speak of language, then you say "Ahadith and the Quran are written in the same way", which immediately shows that you dont have an understanding of either of them.

Nevertheless, you made this statement above ""Monks are not arrogant" and then "Force the people of the book on the narrow path"", so can you at least give the verse number and chapter of this statement?

If you cant give references it will become evident that all of this is just bogus rhetoric.

 

[Lars]

Hmm, you speak of language, then you say "Ahadith and the Quran are written in the same way", which immediately shows that you dont have an understanding of either of them.

Nevertheless, you made this statement above ""Monks are not arrogant" and then "Force the people of the book on the narrow path"", so can you at least give the verse number and chapter of this statement?

If you cant give references it will become evident that all of this is just bogus rhetoric.

I mean in context that its written in the same manner. Whether its Quran or Sunni Hadiths, they use very much same way of communicating with the reader. I think Shia hadiths is written differently however, only read little of the first book, which i may consider reading after i am done with Ibn Kathir tafsir.

But sure, just a second.

" Quran 5:82
You will surely find the most bitter towards the believers to be the Jews and polytheists and the most gracious to be those who call themselves Christian. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not arrogant.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2700
Grade: Sahih
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Do not precede the Jews and the Christians with the Salam. And if one of you meets them in the path, then force them to its narrow portion."
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2700 - Chapters on Seeking Permission - كتاب الاستئذان والآداب عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Quran 76:31
He admits whoever He will into His Mercy and has prepared a painful torment for the disbelievers.

 

[firedragon]

I mean in context that its written in the same manner. Whether its Quran or Sunni Hadiths, they use very much same way of communicating with the reader. I think Shia hadiths is written differently however, only read little of the first book, which i may consider reading after i am done with Ibn Kathir tafsir.

No, you are absolutely wrong.

" Quran 5:82
You will surely find the most bitter towards the believers to be the Jews and polytheists and the most gracious to be those who call themselves Christian. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not arrogant.

So where does it say "Force the people of the book on the narrow path"? Or was that just made up?

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2700
Grade: Sahih
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Do not precede the Jews and the Christians with the Salam. And if one of you meets them in the path, then force them to its narrow portion."
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2700 - Chapters on Seeking Permission - كتاب الاستئذان والآداب عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

So you had misspoken and said "narrow path" which has a completely different theological meaning.

Anyway, thanks for the cut and paste. I will take that into consideration.

Quran 76:31
He admits whoever He will into His Mercy and has prepared a painful torment for the disbelievers.

Who is this verse talking about? Do you have any idea whatsoever? Which website did you cut and paste this verse from? Im just asking out of curiosity. Maybe some translator said that, so I just wish to know where you got this from.

There is no "disbeliever" there in this verse. It says Dhalimoona which comes from darkness, a dark, bad person. Someone who is doing dirty wicked things.

See, there are many people who do this kind of apologetics on the internet but it is strange that they only know of some verses used by older missionaries online to smear another theology to propagate theirs. So these websites mostly contain some verse that seems to help the agenda of some who just wish to spread some angst against theists. The problem with that is, it is immediately exposed because the ones who pretend to know the business very well and make posts like this, seem to only know of the seemingly bad verses. That immediately brings people like that to notice.

Why not make some honest study from some real educational sources rather than some google found famous websites? Just a suggestion.

 

[Lars]

No, you are absolutely wrong.



So where does it say "Force the people of the book on the narrow path"? Or was that just made up?



So you had misspoken and said "narrow path" which has a completely different theological meaning.

Anyway, thanks for the cut and paste. I will take that into consideration.



Who is this verse talking about? Do you have any idea whatsoever? Which website did you cut and paste this verse from? Im just asking out of curiosity. Maybe some translator said that, so I just wish to know where you got this from.

There is no "disbeliever" there in this verse. It says Dhalimoona which comes from darkness, a dark, bad person. Someone who is doing dirty wicked things.

See, there are many people who do this kind of apologetics on the internet but it is strange that they only know of some verses used by older missionaries online to smear another theology to propagate theirs. So these websites mostly contain some verse that seems to help the agenda of some who just wish to spread some angst against theists. The problem with that is, it is immediately exposed because the ones who pretend to know the business very well and make posts like this, seem to only know of the seemingly bad verses. That immediately brings people like that to notice.

Why not make some honest study from some real educational sources rather than some google found famous websites? Just a suggestion.

The copy and paste is from places i read it from though. I linked the Hadith even. If you dont believe me in Quranic ones. You can search it up yourself and see if i have pasted something wrong