A Spirit Runs Through It
Dragonslayer
I do not get what your point is.Before I respond shall I talk about eating shell fish?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I do not get what your point is.Before I respond shall I talk about eating shell fish?
I do not get what your point is.
Because, simply, Islam boldly rejects the Christ. The very core of the Christian religion is the sacrifice and crucifixion; and Islam denies it even happened. Judaism, on the other hand, is not so bold.
I find no issue with that. From my perspective the Bible contains two testaments, like that of a person and their salvation – there is the period before they are saved, and there is the period after. Both periods matter, but only that period after which they are saved is relevant.eating shell fish is punishable by death in the Bible a book Christians believe in.
Interesting. I was unaware there is Jewish scripture which prophetically condemns this belief, that Jesus is the Christ who died for us.Sure we are. Boom.
Prophetically condemns? Well, there is text that condemns the false prophet (Jesus qualifies). That would be in Deut 18 I think. It would be hard to condemn a particular non-entity, but it also says in Deut 24 that a man dies for his own sins so that would invalidate the claim that anyone would "die for us." Then you have all the requirements for a messiah, which Jesus doesn't fulfill so the text would condemn the lies. What else were you looking for? Since the entire of the Jewish written bible never mentions Jesus, he isn't condemned by name. But Judaism as a religion rejects him and condemns his claims which seemed to be what you were claiming did not happen.Interesting. I was unaware there is Jewish scripture which prophetically condemns this belief, that Jesus is the Christ who died for us.
Could you cite that scripture for me, please?
Setting aside other problematic things here, you are suggesting that the Torah is not eternal. It is. The Israelites were commanded to follow it then and they are to follow it now. So that kind of disproves your entire argument.I believe that God went political in order to prove a point; that politics cannot save a nation from corruption and redeem it. The Law that Moses handed to Israel was a measure of governance, and political in nature. Israel wanted to be saved from corruption, and yet, they felt it was impossible without some application of jurisprudence. Therefore God is like a parent, showing a headstrong child that their method is futile; and once proven wrong, the child becomes attentive to a new, fruitful method.
The fruitful method is the Spirit of God.
I believe the Law, in its principle, is eternal.Setting aside other problematic things here, you are suggesting that the Torah is not eternal. It is. The Israelites were commanded to follow it then and they are to follow it now. So that kind of disproves your entire argument.
Exodus 31:16:
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
Exodus 12:23-25:
For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you. And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and thy sons for ever. And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
Deuteronomy 11:1
Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.
etc.
Basically Christianity redefining everything to fit its theology, ignoring what's actually written.I believe the Law, in its principle, is eternal.
I was referring to the fact that Islamic scripture specifically addresses the subject of Jesus' nature, whereas Judaic scripture does not, specifically.Prophetically condemns? Well, there is text that condemns the false prophet (Jesus qualifies). That would be in Deut 18 I think. It would be hard to condemn a particular non-entity, but it also says in Deut 24 that a man dies for his own sins so that would invalidate the claim that anyone would "die for us." Then you have all the requirements for a messiah, which Jesus doesn't fulfill so the text would condemn the lies. What else were you looking for? Since the entire of the Jewish written bible never mentions Jesus, he isn't condemned by name. But Judaism as a religion rejects him and condemns his claims which seemed to be what you were claiming did not happen.
It was overkill, though. Besides, Jesus isn't saying she doesn't deserve it. He was pointing out the hypocrisy. It sounds more like he was accusing all of them of having a "piece of the pie" and only blaming the "pie" for it. They weren't chasing down the guy, after all. And even though I agree with you she was (partly) at fault, stoning an adulterer is a bit much. It doesn't fit at all. Just divorce the woman. Problem solved.The woman harmed her husband and transgressed the law. The law has a prescribed consequence for this. The woman knew what she was doing and what the outcome would be.
Even if the laws are just, death is a consequence for the pettiest of reasons. Surely civilized people can do better.G-d gave the Jewish people a bunch of unjust laws to follow, is that what you're saying? Then sent some guy along thousands of years later to say, 'Sorry guys, just kidding!'
Not really. They were unhappily dragged around for 40 years on a 2 week journey just so a religious terrorist could avoid a murder charge in his home country.Israel wanted to be saved from corruption
The ironic thing is Egypt had more rights than Hebrews wanted.they felt it was impossible without some application of jurisprudence
Because Jesus didn't exist when the text was written, so why talk about him specifically?I was referring to the fact that Islamic scripture specifically addresses the subject of Jesus' nature, whereas Judaic scripture does not, specifically.
My point was that Islam has a "vendetta" against the Christian Jesus, whereas Judaism does not.Because Jesus didn't exist when the text was written, so why talk about him specifically?
We just explicitly reject him. Got it.My point was that Islam has a "vendetta" against the Christian Jesus, whereas Judaism does not.
Yes, adultery is harmful, and painful. But it should not be regulated by politicians: It should not become a political matter.
No regulation at all.Ok, who will regulate it then? Of course the government with input of ideas and opinion of the community activists. I cant include hedonistic bodies.
Interesting. I was unaware there is Jewish scripture which prophetically condemns this belief, that Jesus is the Christ who died for us.
Could you cite that scripture for me, please?
Perhaps they ask for acknowledgment because he is the most noble person to have lived, not to mention being a Jew, and yet the Jews reject him. As for me though, asking for acknowledgment – I was not asking.Really...I find shocking when Christians ask Jews to acknowledge Jesus' existence...not to mention that He was the Messiah...
and btw...in the OT there is absolutely no reference to the Christian concept of Messiah explained by John the evangelist.
No regulation at all.
It is enough that society condemns it.
Many things sound good in theory, but when put into practice they become corrupt and evil. Take communism for example.
I'm not fan of Quora but I gave the entry a fair read after following your link. I'm having trouble finding a reference to where religious Jews might find the Protestant version of the Bible insulting. There is some reference to the interpretation of the content but that's really nothing to do with the actual content, maybe you could paste and highlight? Just curious, that's all.Christian version is different.
'OT' has become popular use, but it is insulting to religious Jews.