Results 41 - 60 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229289 | ||
Hi Tim, Well we can agree to differ :-)) As I pointed out the high sticklers took your view, (except that the period was not necessarily 12 months, it was agreed by the families), but the general consensus was that sexual relations during betrothal were permissible. Thus Mary would not have been frowned on by her Galilean friends, nor by the majority. It is doubtful therefore whether the Pharisees would have made a fuss about such a thing. You must not judge Jesus' day by later Rabbinic rules. Best wishes |
||||||
42 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229276 | ||
Hi, The Israelites/Jews believed in arranged marriages, although that did not necessarily mean that the parents did not consult their children. But for a man or woman to marry without their parents agreement was unusual (Esau was an exception and thereby grieved his parents). When the couple were agreed on by their parents they became betrothed. This was then seen as binding, and only divorce could set it aside. The aim was that it would last for life. You will notice that Joseph was going to 'put away, divorce' Mary privately, even though they were 'only' betrothed. It had to be a semi-official action. Marriage wowuld then result when they had reached the necessary age. These are facts that can be found in any reliable Bible Dictionary, and good commentaries. NBD says, 'the betrothed woman was sometimes called 'wife' and was under the same obligation of faithfulness (Gen 29.21; Deut 22.23-24; Matt 1.18, 20) and the betrothed man was called 'husband' (Joel 1.8; Matt 1.19). Best wishes. |
||||||
43 | What does the bible say about near death | Acts 14:19 | biblicalman | 229275 | ||
Hi, In 229238 Searcher stated that it was a parable. I was pointing out reasons why it might not be a parable but a reference to real life. Interpreters are divided on the question. But as Jesus' parables were always based on real life we can accept that its details are portraying His thoughts either way. Best wishes |
||||||
44 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229269 | ||
Hi Holmes, LOL wildly speculate? Let others judge who is wildly speculating :-)) Joshua was thirty eight years old at the Exodus (Joshua 14.7). So now per your schemat all his ancestors will have had to marry at 14 and have their first son at 15. Meanwhile all Moses' ancestors are having their sons at 95, Amran having his first (Aaron) at 92? It does not sound very convincing to me. Indeed I challenge you to produce one birth at the age of 15 (or 16) mentioned in the Pentateuch. And yet you postulate ten. It appears to me that the wild speculation you mention is yours :-)) I will just list a few errors in your statements then I will withdraw from the argument. I do not think it anymore suitable for the forum. You have not shown that the 400 years mentioned in Gen 15.13 includes the time in Canaan. The Hebrew text in fact gives the opposite impression. YOU SAY: . Exodus 12:40-41 indicates that the sons of Israel were in Egypt for EXACTLY 430 years. Correct, that is what it does say, in Egypt for exactly four hundred and thirty years. So why are you arguing differently? YOU SAY: The original text also indicates this was both Canaan and Egypt. Which original text? Nowhere does any Hebrew text suggest that Canaan was included. Paul's 430 years commenced with the 'confirmation of the covenant'. This is a vague date. The covenant was confirmed over the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see e.g. Gen 35.11-12). Paul's point was that the Law was given 430 years after the whole period of covenant confirmation prior to entering Egypt. With the rest you are just playing with figures to suit your argument, inventing figures for birth dates as you go along. Wild speculation? Well, certainly not scriptural facts. I suggest now that we drop the subject. Let people judge for themselves. Best wishes |
||||||
45 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229223 | ||
St John May I suggest that you read 1 Corinthians 4.1-5, followed by Romans 14.10-12? At least your friend was humble and admitted that he was in no position to judge. It is a pity he did not stop at that. Having read the posts I see little speculation, but carefully argued posts based on Scripture on things that God did reveal. The dating in 2nd millennium BC might not seem important to you, but it is very important for some Christians and seekers who may be put off by things which appear to contradict secular history. It is very important evangelistically therefore to know what the Scriptures actually say. My non-Christian friends challenge these things. With regard to the use of numbers it is my view that it is one of the most important things to grasp when reading the Old Testament. It explains a lot of seeming contradictions and anomalies. And to some believers and seekers these things are important. That was why the question was originally asked. After all you do not have to read them if you do not wish to. You will note in fact that all my posts have been in response to questions. It would be exceedingly impolite and unChristian not to reply to them. |
||||||
46 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229210 | ||
Hi Holmes, So Ephraim's granddaughter married a rich Canaanite and returned to Canaan say 200 years before the exodus, rebuilding 3 cities? As Ephraim's family would also be rich this is not surprising. But you are surely not suggesting that she returned with Moses and with her great great great great great grandson Joshua? That would be stretching credulity too far. Her return to Canaan is irrelevant for the question we are dealing with. I fail to see the connection. No doubt you will explain it a little better if you think it worth your time. It doesn't affect anything I have said. It was when Joshua returned that was important. Best wishes |
||||||
47 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229204 | ||
In Ex 12 read 'children of Israel' NOT 'children of Egypt' Too sleepy LOL. | ||||||
48 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229203 | ||
Hi Holmes, It ie when statements are made that is the crucial question. The statement in Gen 15 was made at least 500 years before the statement concerning the wilderness generation. It was made at a time of great longevity. Thus the view of a generation at that time was different. (If you look back you will find that Tim cited four recognised commentaries that agreed with me on this point:-)) ). With regard to genealogies it was a regular occurrence for only the important names to be given. But we can square Moses genealogy (four generations) with that of Joshua (eleven generations) in two ways, either by assuming a generation of 100 years for Moses, and 40 years for Joshua (Moses' family were long-lived), or by recognising that in Moses' genealogy only the important names were given. In the case of Paul's statement he was of course citing the four hundred and thirty years mentioned in Exodus 12.40. 'Now the sojourning of the children of Egypt who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years'. Taken naturally, that is a clear statement that the 430 years applies to the time of sojourning in Egypt, thus confirming what we have said about Gen 15. You will notice that Paul speaks of the period from the CONFIRMING (not the giving) of the covenant to the giving of the Law. The covenant was given to Abraham and confirmed continually to Isaac and Jacob. Thus the period of 430 years is from Jacob to Moses (which is the period in Egypt per Exodus 12.40). Paul was not giving a chronological table of dates. He was indicating that Scripture made clear that the Sinai covenant came at least 430 years after the confirming of the Abrahamic covenant because that was the length of time that they were in Egypt. Of course the Israelite were sojourners in Egypt. They never saw it as their home country. Joseph makes clear that even he expected them to return to the land of promise (Exod 50.24-25). It does not necessarily say that they would be oppressed for four hundred years, only that they would be in Egypt for four hundred years and at some stage be oppressed. God's people were sojourners in both Canaan and Egypt. But it was the time of their sojourning in Egypt that is stated twice to be 400 years. Why try to force a meaning on verses, when they are perfectly clear and reconcile without difficulty? Best wishes |
||||||
49 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229196 | ||
Hi Doc, Well it is true that we all have axe's to grind, you as well as me. And that is why it is important that we consider a wide range of views. LOL I have never suggested that there were people who could use numeracy and not read. Numeracy was a highly skilled art unlikely for those who could not read. Although of course as writing grew out of the original use of numbers in ancient business documents you may have a point in the initial stages. In both the UK and the US today there are people who cannot read and write. And that in spite of intense efforts to make everyone literate. And the standard of numeracy for many is very low (you would probably be surprised to know how low, even after years of schooling). So why should it be surprising that in a land of farmers, who never went to school, and who worked hard from daybreak to nightfall trying to extract a living out of their small plots of land, and their few sheep and goats, and had no books to read or need to send letters, literacy should be at a very low level? It would be surprising if it was otherwise. Of course, there were always those who could read and write to some extent (especially among the relativey wealthy), and there were the comparatively few who were 'scholars', especially among the leading priests, but they were almost certainly in the minority. To you the word of God is written text, but to the ancients it was memorised text. It is true that copies of the Scriptures were available in the Temple, but comparatively few had access to them. And they were not easy to read. And copying was an arduous task, and writing materials very expensive. There would not be many copies outside the Temple, especially before the time of David. The ancients had retentive memories. As the Law was read out to them at the feasts (Deut 31.11-13; etc), it would not be long before they could repeat it word for word, especially as their fathers would have taught them it. And they would then repeat it to their children, as the Scriptures told them to do. Note that Moses was told to write the song and 'put it in their mouths' (not on their tablets). So Moses agreed with me. You may say, 'they were told to write it on their gates and on their doorposts' (Deut 6.9). But they would call in the signwriter to do that. Yes, they would repeat the Shema every day, but they would not read it. Few would have any written material. They knew it by heart. Consider how Muslims today consider knowing the Quran by heart (even though they do not understand it) to be something to be earnestly sought after. I am afraid I do not look on modern Rabbis as authorities on ancient history. Like most they look back from a biased viewpoint. Reading and numeracy is so second nature to us that we find it difficult to conceive of a world where it was limited. But I am even now involved in teaching my granddaughters to count, and it is an arduous business, even with all the numeracy games available. Do you think the poor among the ancients had time to spare for such activity? What use would it be to them? There were far better things to spend their limited time on. Best wishes |
||||||
50 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229181 | ||
Thanks Tim that's very useful. Best wishes |
||||||
51 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229174 | ||
Hi Doc, My statements with respect to counting were not based on the views of higher critical scholars, but on the researches of scholars into the use of numbers without any specific reference to the Bible. They had no axe to gind. As I have pointed out, 'modern' tribes who had not been brought into contact with 'civilisation' were regularly found not to be able to count, usually beyond three or four, although very occasionally up to twenty. It was simply not 'natural'. They not only had no use for numbers but in some cases even resisted the attempt to teach them numeracy. A recent researcher, speaking of Mediaeval England stated 'By this time schools were reduced to little or no arithmetic, it is doubtful whether few knew more than basic counting and finger reckoning.' This the whole of Mediaeval England. And they would not have been seen as 'primitive' (unless you wanted a dagger in your throat:-)) ). Actually many men in ancient days were quite literate and yet unable to count beyond twenty. Numbering was left to the experts. I have at no stage said that no Israelite could count. No doubt Israel also had numerate scribes (as Scripture suggests). But they would be specialists. It is probable that Eliezer, Abraham's steward, was numerate. Indeed Abraham himself may well have been, for he came from Ur of the Chaldees, which was a centre for ancient mathematics, and he was the equivalent of royalty, although whether he went to school in Ur ia another question. As semi-nomads they probably lived on the periphery.(But even the Sumerians were hindered because no one had come up with the concept of a 'zero, nought'. That concept was not invented until the 6th century BC). We certainly know that a king of Egypt after the time of Abraham was unable to calculate. For it was said that when he went into the underworld he was challenged as to his ability in numeracy in order to enter it (thereby proving himself to be royalty) and was baffled, only to be saved because he remembered a verse of poetry which contained numeracy. He was consequently looked on by the Egyptians as 'a great magician', demonstrating the awe in which numeracy was held. It is quite possible that Samuel learned to count beyond 20. But he was hardly the average Israelite. He ruled Israel, and was a scholar besides. However, I cannot see why a man being a prophet of God should necessitate advanced numeracy. Amos was a herdsman. To us numeracy is second nature. We are taught it from our earliest years. The average Israelite had no schooling, was probably not literate (although of course some were to a limited level. But we must remember that the average Israelite before the exile had no reading material), and had no real need for numeracy beyond a limited level. Ancient peoples had managed without it for thousands of years. Of course once money was invented in around 6th century BC numeracy would increase to a limited extent among those who used money. It would at last become more useful. It was, however, the Greeks who turned mathematics into an art, and even a religion (but not of course to the average Greek). Best wishes |
||||||
52 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229166 | ||
Hi Searcher, You make a good point when you stress that Isaac was born when Abraham was one hundred. However we also have to take into account the previous longevity of the patriarchs. To us if someone lives to 100 we are amazed. To them it was second nature. Seeing 40 as signifying 'a generation' would not of course mean that everyone was born at 40. It was an average, and quite possibly based on the period God allotted for the passing of the wilderness generation (Numbers 14.33), who would die out one by one. The actual real length of a generation in most cases was probably around 25. It is interestimg how often 40 occurs. It was the stated age at which the patriarchs took wives (Isaac - Gen 25.20; Esau - Gen 26.34). It was the stated age when Caleb was sent to spy out the land (Josh 14.7). It was regularly the length of the period of rest in Judges (Judges 3.11; 5.31; 8.28). It was the stated period of Philistine oppression (Judges 13.1). Eli judged Israel for 'forty years' (1 Sam 4.18). The aim in these cases may well have been to indicate 'a generation'. Ishbosheth was forty years old when he began to reign (2 Sam 2.10). David reigned for 'forty years' (2 Sam 5.4; 2.11). It was 'after 40 years' that Absalom decided to rebel (2 Sam 15.7). Solomon reigned in Jerusalem for 'forty years' (1 Kings 11.42). All this suggests that at this time 'forty' was a round figure, possibly indicating a generation. Best wishes |
||||||
53 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229152 | ||
Hi Doc, I was not of course speaking of Moses. He is hardly an example of the average Israelite, although I should point out that the Egyptians did not advance in complicated mathematics like the Sumerians and Old Babylonians did. And even their mathematics deteriorated after 1800 BC. Egyptian hieroglyphs were not helpful in enabling advanced calculation. The Egyptian mathematics largely concentrated on practical measurement. But I presume you are not suggesting that Moses set up schools in the wilderness to teach mathematics? They had enough problems finding water. The people were troublesome enough without that. But there is a huge gulf between a relatively few expert Egyptian builders, and certain Sumerian mathematics experts, and a nation like Israel where, before the time of David's court there was ittle need for mathematics. Of course if you have in mind the 'wise men' at David's court no doubt SOME of them could use mathematics reasonably proficiently. But they would be the exceptions. There were very few schools, and little opportunity for the ordinary man to go to school. Nor was counting needed. The shepherd and herdsman knew each of his cattle by name, and trading was carried out using tally sticks and stones in order to indicate quantity. These were tried and trusted methods which had been in use well before numbering began (around 3500 BC). Before that no one could count, however sophisticated. I would not take too much notice of Josephus if I were you. He is reasonably reliable for ths history of his time (although he tended to exaggerate) but he was not reliable for past history. And he was trying to impress the Romans. Furthermore he lived 1900 years after Abraham. It would be like me trying to say what happened in the 2nd century AD without having any records to go by. Meaningless. In fact his statement is ridiculous. What possible use would Abraham have had for advanced mathematics and primitive physics? His interests were trading, herding, and farming. Have you noticed how in recording the statistics of Saul the Bible writer used a non-numerical system? 'Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned two years in Jerusalem'. Now what does that mean? It means that he began to reign in the first stage of his life (below twenty) and continued to reign into the second stage of his life, but died before he reached the third stage (possibly 60). There was clearly no recorder at Saul's court!! Many of the number problems in the Old Testament are best explained by the fact that numbers were used adjectivally. And number words had other meanings. Thus the word for 1000 (eleph) could also mean a clan, or a fairly large military unit, or if repointed a military captain. Thus two eleph could mean two clans, or two military units without any reference to numbers. 40 eleph could mean forty military units, and often did (even if we do incorrectly translate it as 40,000). You really cannot compare the average Israelite with high ranking Babylonian priests, and advanced Egyptian thinkers who had nthing better to do with their time. Of course Israel did eventually develop an intellectual elite. But that is what they were an elite. The nearest comparison we can make with the Israelites are modern tribes untouched by by 'civilisation'. And without exception they have been found to be unable to count beyond twenty. Most could not count beyond three. And yet many were highly intelligent and engaged in shepherding, farming and trading without any need to do so. Before you criticise further I suggest you read some reliable books on the history of mathematics by scholars who have genuinely researched the subject and have no axe to grind. Best wishes |
||||||
54 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229141 | ||
Hi Searcher, Because the four generations of Genesis 15 occur over 400 years, thus indicating that a generation was seen as 100 years (it was in the days of longevity). The actual genealogy of Joshua is given in Chronicles which was 11 generations inclusive from Jospeh to Joshua. Over 400 years that is 40 years to a generation. By the way we must beware of reading back into the ancients our very mathematical modern outlook. The ancients did not on the whole cope with mathematical ideas very well. It is questionable how many of them could count above, say, 20. (I have done a deatailed study into the use of numbers through history). Best wishes |
||||||
55 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229140 | ||
Hi Holmes, I don't remember mentioning Passover? You must have have misread what I said. It was in the days of Abraham (around 1900 BC - Sodom and Gomorrah, and Ur of the Chaldees had not been yet destroyed, and both were destroyed around 1900 BC)) that a generation was one hundred years, while the forty year generations of the days of the Exodus were at least 500 years later, even if you take the early date for the Exodus. I fail to see where I am misquoting Scripture. It says 'strangers in a land (singular) which is not theirs where they would serve them and would be afflicted for four hundred years, and also THAT NATION whom they serve will I judge, and afterward they will come out with great substance '. Clearly one nation was in mind. And besides they were not afflicted in Canaan, nor did they serve the Canaanits. The family tribe of the patriarchs was too powerful (Abraham had 318 fighting men born in his house). It can thus only refer to Egypt. So the Bible used 100 years as a generation in 1900 BC and 40 years at least 4-500 years later. How is that the same time period? Well if Moses' genealogy is complete how then do you explain the genealogy of Joshua which clearly goes over 10 generations from Ephraim to Joshua? I have based my ideas on stated Biblical facts, not on my own unsubstantiated theories. Best wishes. |
||||||
56 | rev.7:4 | Revelation | biblicalman | 229124 | ||
hi searcher, You will note that it does not say that 'he saw' the 144,000, only that he heard their number. Thus the number was important depicting 12 x 12, the patriarchs and the Apostles (Rev 21). Then he looked, and what did he see? That what he had heard numbered was a multitude which no man could number. Thus they were the chosen of God, numbered by Him and yet innumerable. But the New Testament makes clear that the true Israel is the Israel who believed in the Messiah. They were the believing remnant. They WERE Israel and as Israel had always done they accepted Gentiles into their number. They were the olive tree which is Israel (Jer 11.16). It would be very strange if God took up the position of discounting those large number of Jews who believed in the Messiah, in order to favour the unbelieving who were accursed from Christ. Best wishes |
||||||
57 | rev.7:4 | Revelation | biblicalman | 229120 | ||
It should be noted that the term 'the twelve tribes of Israel' is used by James to refer to the whole church (James 1.1). It is quite clear that James is not simply addressing Christian Jews because in his letter, which is full of moral exhortation, no reference is made to how Jewish Christians should see Gentile Christians, which was a burning topic at the time. Had James been writing to Jewish Christians only he would unquestionably have dealt with this topic at least once. Furthermore it is clear that his letter would have been read out in all the churches that received it (there were no separate Jewish churches as far as we know) and had he not intended it to be a letter to all he would certainly have sent a greeting to Gentile Christans. That being so 'the twelve tribes of Israel who are scattered abroad' is a reference to the church as a whole. This ties in with the idea that the Apostles would sit on the thrones of David (Psalm 122.5) on behalf of the Messiah overseeing 'the twelve tribes of Israel' i.e. the church of the Messiah. Whilst we have lost sight of the fact the early church laid great emphasis on the fact that the true church were the true Israel. They were founded on the early believers in the Messiah who were all ex-Jews, and thus formed the true remnant of Israel (Rom 9.6; 11.1 ff). And as Paul makes clear in Romans 11.16-24 the believing Gentiles were engrafted into Israel, whilst the unbelieving among the Jews were cut off. For the teaching that the true church is the true Messiah-believing Israel see Rom 11.16-24; Gal. 3.29; 6.16; Eph 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.9; James 1.1. The reason that the names of Ephraim and Dan were omitted is not difficult to determine. It is because those names were especially associated with idolatry in the OT. Abstention from idolatry is an emphasis of Revelation. (That Ephraim is included as Joseph indicates that the issue was over the names not over the tribes). In Rev 21.12, 14, 17, the bride of Christ (the New Jerusalem), and therefore the Old and New Testament church, combines the twelve patriarchs with the twelve Apostles, and this in connection with 144000. There could be no clearer indication that the bride of Christ is in mind in Rev 7 and 14. Best wishes |
||||||
58 | What does begotten mean on this verse? | Heb 1:5 | biblicalman | 229077 | ||
You asked the question, 'how is begotten used in the Bible?' It is used of fathers begetting their sons. This is a direct begetting (as in Heb 1.5). It is used of ancestors 'begetting' descendants (e.g. Matt 1.8 where Uzziah was a descendant of Joram, not hs son). It is probably used in Matt 1.16 of the adoption of a relative as heir (that is how Joseph could have two fathers, and how Jesus could be heir to the throne of Israel). It is also probably use in Psalm 2.7 of the adoption by God of Israel's king as His 'son' (compare 2 Sam 7.14). This as a type of the coming Messiah. No one in the Psalmist's time would have seen it as indicating what it did come to mean. No one was expecting God's own Son to come into the world. But as Seth has pointed out its meaning in Heb 1.5 is determined by the context. It is speaking of One 'begotten' as an only trueborn Son of God. |
||||||
59 | why are there rewards in heaven | 1 Corinthians | biblicalman | 229076 | ||
Not wishing for a moment to disagree wth Seth's excellent posting. but there are just two points I would wish to raise. Firstly that when Jesus said of John the Baptist, 'Among men that are born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist but he who is least in the Kingly Rule of Heaven is greater than He', I do not see it as referring to their comparative righteouness. Indeed John the Baptist has entered Heaven through the righteousnes of Christ in the same way as we will. For Romans 3.24-25 applies to 'sins done aforetime', that is prior to Christ's coming. In my view it is referring to status. It is bringing out that Jesus was saying that what He had come to introduce was far, far more significant than all that had gone before. God's Kingly Rule had come into the world in Jesus, and thus all Who respond to Him and come under the Kingly Rule of Heaven achieve a status unknown in the Old Testament. They are adopted as 'sons of God' (Galatians 4.1-7), a term never used of God's people, certainly in this sense, in the Old Testament. They call God 'Abba Father' becaue they have received the Spirit of His Son (Galatians 4.6). They have been made one with Christ. They are 'greater', because their King is greater,and they share in His glory. And they are greater because they humble themselves as servants. Who is greatest among them? The one who is least among them (Luke 9.46, 48; 22.24-27). Secondly that when the mother of James and John spoke of their sitting on Jesus' right hand and left, what she was really asking was that they might take the positions of prime importance in what she saw as the soon coming kingdom. Like most who followed Jesus she was expecting Him soon to make the move that would drive out the Romans, establishing God's kingdom in Israel. Jesus of course sits on two thrones (made clear in Rev 3.21). One is the throne of His Father, at which in His manhood He sits at God's right hand (Heb 1.3 etc), while in His Godhood He sits in the midst of the throne (Rev 5.6). The other is His Messianic throne on which we as overcomers will sit with Him (better than being at His right hand). This was the one at which one would sit on His right hand and the other on His left, a position reserved for those whom God determines. (But does this mean that they will not sit on His throne. Of course not. They will be overcomers. This reminds us that thrones are earthly things. They magnify the one who sits on them. In Heaven we will not be seeking a throne. we will be longing to be servants along with the great Servant (Matthew 20.25-28; Mark 9.35; Luke 12.37; 17.8). Those who are looking forward to sitting on thrones have the wrong spirit. They should be looking forward to being the servants all. Heaven should not alter what our attitude should be. How sad if we enter Heaven wanting a throne. (It is quite another thing what God decides to give us). Nor does God sit on a throne except when he is making a theophany for our sake. He is Spirit. What is being indicated is that God is Lord over all. |
||||||
60 | islam/Christians | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229057 | ||
To a large extent the difference between us lies in the fact that I presented what Muhammad taught in the Quran whilst you are describing Islam as it has become. I thus pointed out that in their attitude today Islam did not obey the whole of the Quran. In other words they deny the teaching of their own holy book. As this is not a site for discussing Islam I wil merely say that Muhammed did not include Christians and Jews as infidels in the Quran. It was polytheists who were called Infidels. Muhammad in fact gained a large part of his ideas from Jews and heretical Christians. No doubt you will be able to cite me the verses in the Quran to which you refer where Christians and Jews are called infidels? Sura 2.62 says, 'Those who believe, and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with the Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.' Sura 5.69 says, 'Surely those who believe (Muslims) and those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians --- whoever believed in God and in the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.' Now I must stress that I do not believe that the doctrine thus taught is true. Nor do I suggest that Islam is an alternative truth. Islam is a total distortion of Christianity. But we must be honest in our presentations. Best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |