Any Answers from Christians?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

[Natassia - you're in red]

Why does "sincere repentance" erase sin? How does it make up for the evil that you've done? How does it repay the spiritual debt accrued? How does it balance the scale?
And why is it that wealth is a determining factor in regards to the atonement of sins? And if atonement is secondary, does that mean it is not really necessary?

Remember, the sin we're talking about here's one between the sinner and God alone. The One True God, Allah is the Most Merciful and He accepts sincere repentance for sins that affect noone besides the sinner cuz the scales are balanced here by the repentance. Someone misses a fast for no good reason, they sin but Allah may forgive them if they sincerely repent. The atonement here's to make up for the lost fast or to derive the lost rewards of the fast. But if our sin affects another, Allah wont forgive us unless the affected forgive us or we atone for it, cuz Allah is the Most Just.

But, where does Allah's law accommodate for st**id, lazy poor people and hardworking, honest rich people? In those cases, the st**id and lazy is rewarded by only having to feed his family a basket of dates whereas the hardworking and honest is punished by having to free two slaves who he worked hard to be able to afford.

Physical suffering is relative. And I don't see how feeding your family some dates is punishment. 

Are you implying here that all poor people are poor cuz they are st**id and lazy? If not, then without further ado, please answer my question - How Just, is it to make one suffer more than another, for the same sin? 

The punishment for fornication is 100 lashes, but what if someone has CIPA and the man she slept with did not? He would receive the same punishment...and it would be painful for him but the woman he slept with wouldn't feel anything painful from 100 lashes.
Why didn't Allah accommodate for that?

Doesnt matter, repentance's what counts here. Someone fornicates several times and doesnt get caught but turns to Allah in sincere repentance, Allah may forgive.

Banal doesn't mean wrong.

But when its lies thats being banally dished out, its Goebbelsian!

I'm just trying to get definitions for things. From what I've read in the Quran, Tafsir, and Hadith the definition of adultery is different for a woman than it is for a man.
If a woman slept with her slave boy, she'd be found guilty of adultery. If a woman slept with a married male captive, she'd be found guilty of adultery. If a woman took a second husband, she'd be found guilty of adultery.

Adultery/fornicartion is sexual relations out of wedlock. Where does the Quran say anyone can sleep with anyone out of wedlock??

And would you mind defining "corruption throughout the land"? That is a rather vague statement and open to interpretation.

Crimes that affect the Law & Order and the society as a whole.

Quran 9:5

A perfect example of  'taking out of context', not only shows your ignorance but also your duplicity.
In the verses 1-7 of Surah 9 (Taubah), the term used is mushrikeen meaning here the idolaters of Makkah and addressed towards those who violated the peace treaty with the Prophet Muhammad. Its the same theme up to 9:16, Allah is instructing the Prophet Muhammad to free himself from the obligation to the peace treaty of Hudaybiah (made in 6 AH for a ten year period) which the idolaters of Quraysh violated in the second year and raided a tribe who were an ally of the Prophet. The verse gives specific instruction to fight those who violated the treaty and killed the allies of the Prophet. These verses in no way propagate or indicate the same treatment to other non-Muslims except under similar circumstances.  

Quran 9:29 and corresponding Tafsir: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanw�r al-Miqb�s min Tafs�r Ibn �Abb�s, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an)

This has been dealt with extensively and your allegations have been thoroughly refuted, yet you seem to have problems, comprehension problems perhaps. I'll make it simple for you, simple questions - "If Jizyah was a degrading tax as you allege then - 

1. Why wasnt it collected from the non-Muslims who agreed to fight alonside the Muslims? 
2. Why was it returned to the non-Muslims whom the Muslims coudnt protect?
I couldnt check up on the Hadiths, another time InshaAllah.

Never read it. Honestly.  I typically stick to really early stuff.  Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, al-Waqidi, the Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, etc.)  And the biographies I do read were written prior to 1975...before there was any reason to sugar-coat, or in contrast--demonize.

Ok, I'll try to believe that...

I love it when Muslims bring this up. Please show me in your trustworthy sources where it says the Muslims were forced to leave Mecca. 

....like the people aboard the Titanic werent forced to get off it when it was sinking.... like to play with words eh?

When Ali was found in Muhammad's bed...was he forced to flee Mecca that night? What about Abu Bakr's daughter Asma?

What about Bilal? Ammar? Kabbab? Abu Fakih? Umm Ubais? Nadia? and the rest.... What happened to Yasir, Sumayya, Abdullah ibn Yasir?

Muir, Spencer & Co might have missed all them eh?

And how did goods from Syria rightfully belong to the Muslims? If Muslim property in Mecca had been stolen, why didn't they go and get it from Mecca rather than steal goods from a trade caravan that didn't belong to them? I suppose "due process" was too advanced of a concept, even for the prophet of Allah.

Syrian goods that was with whom? the Makkans. Part of which no doubt was made up of what the Muslims were FORCED to leave behind in Makkah. Proximity provided the Muslims the opportunity to try to regain what was theirs. And would you mind enlightening me on the "due process" back them.

Perhaps Abu Jahl was ticked off that the Muslims had dared to threaten the trade caravan in the first place. Perhaps he was angry about the raid on a trade caravan in Nakhla and murder of an innocent merchant.

Yeah Abu Jahl got ticked off.... as simple as that, while the Muslims having been put through all kinds of persecutions were supposed to ?what.... look up at the sky and hope Santa comes by with what was theirs?  

Can you please provide trustworthy sources that state Ka'b was planning to assassinate Muhammad? I don't mean sources 500+ years after the fact. Can you explain to me how expression of free speech harms Allah and his apostle? And if it does, then does that mean I can kill my pagan neighbor if he starts preaching against Islam and leading thousands of Muslims to leave Islam?

That there was a war between Muslims and non-Muslims at the time of the alleged �assassination,� in the third year of the Hijrah, is an undeniable fact. The question is whether Ka�b was among the combatants or the non-combatants. If he actually joined hands with the enemies of Islam and placed himself among those who were fighting with the Muslims, and he was killed by the Muslims, can this be called a case of treachery, cruelty or butchery? That Ka�b had openly joined the combatants and become their ally is borne out by all historical accounts; nay, some of them go so far as to say that he had planned to murder the Prophet(P) treacherously. Here are a few authorities: 

�He went to the Quraish weeping over their killed (at Badr) and inciting them to fight with the Prophet.�¹ 

(The Prophet said): �He (Ka�b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting�²
�And according to Kalbi, he united in a league with the Quraish before the curtains of the Ka�bah, to fight against the Muslims.�³
�And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the Prophet and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden.�⁴
Commenting on Bukhari�s report relating to the killing of Ka�b, the author of Fath al-Bari relates the reports which we have quoted above from Zurqani, viz., Ka�b�s going to Makkah and inciting the Quraish entering into a league before the curtains of the Ka�bah to fight against the Muslims, the Holy Prophet�s declaration that he had assumed open enmity, and his plan to kill the Prophet by inviting him to a feast. Bukhari himself speaks of the incidents relating to the killing of Ka�b under headings in which the word harb (fighting) occurs, thus showing that he was looked upon as a combatant. Abu Dawud speaks of the incident under the heading, �When the enemy is attacked and he is unprepared,� showing that Ka�b was dealt with as an enemy at war with Muslims. And the comment on this is that �Ka�b used to incite people to murder the Muslims�; and discussing the legality of what the party sent out for the punishment of Ka�b did, the same commentator adds: �This is not allowed in the case of an enemy after security has been given to him or peace has been made with him � but it is allowed in the case of one who breaks the covenant and helps others in the murder of Muslims.� And Ibn Sa�d tells us that when the Jews complained to the Holy Prophet that their leader was killed, �he reminded them of his deeds and how he urged and incited (the Quraish) to fight against them,� and adds that �the Prophet then called upon them to make an agreement with him�, and this agreement �was afterwards in the possession of �Ali.� All this evidence is too clear to show that Ka�b was put to death for having broken the agreement with the Prophet and joining his enemies who were at war with him and he was therefore treated as a combatant, while the other Jews who did not go to this length, though they were not less active in speaking evil of the Holy Prophet, still lived at peace with him and all that they were required to do was to sign an agreement that they would not join hands with those who were at war with the Muslims.

Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 10 
ibid., vol. ii, p. 11 
ibid. 
ibid., p. 12

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-ii/ 
The crimes of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf - 

1. Planned to assassinate the Prophet.
2. Treason, inciting war against the state.
3.Slandering women.

Even if you were to reject no.1, you cant deny 2 and 3.

To what extent is the freedom of expression? Does it accomodate treason and slandering? What does your good book say about 'freedom of expression'?... I'm curious.

Muhammad said he was the messenger of God. He created the Islamic state in Medinah that never originally belonged to the Muslims in the first place. The people living in Medinah just didn't persecute the Muslims who supposedly fled there. (I could have sworn Muhammad ORDERED them to leave Mecca, but I'll have to remember where I read that.)
And so, people had to stand behind Muhammad because Muhammad said so. In reality, that is what you are saying.

So you're totally ignorant of the Pledges made at al Aqaba and the Ansars stand prior to the Batte of Badr..... I told you, learn some History.　

But is it perfection? Is it divine or isn't it? Did Allah inspire something to not be truly divine?

Define 'perfection', not some dictionary definition, define 'perfection' in this context.

Edited by Saladin - 03 September 2009 at 11:09am

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Saladin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Male Joined: 04 September 2007 Location: Sri Lanka Status: Offline Points: 575	Post Options Post Reply Quote Saladin Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Any Answers from Christians? Posted: 27 August 2009 at 12:48pm
	[Natassia - you're in red] Why does "sincere repentance" erase sin? How does it make up for the evil that you've done? How does it repay the spiritual debt accrued? How does it balance the scale? And why is it that wealth is a determining factor in regards to the atonement of sins? And if atonement is secondary, does that mean it is not really necessary? Remember, the sin we're talking about here's one between the sinner and God alone. The One True God, Allah is the Most Merciful and He accepts sincere repentance for sins that affect noone besides the sinner cuz the scales are balanced here by the repentance. Someone misses a fast for no good reason, they sin but Allah may forgive them if they sincerely repent. The atonement here's to make up for the lost fast or to derive the lost rewards of the fast. But if our sin affects another, Allah wont forgive us unless the affected forgive us or we atone for it, cuz Allah is the Most Just. But, where does Allah's law accommodate for stid, lazy poor people and hardworking, honest rich people? In those cases, the stid and lazy is rewarded by only having to feed his family a basket of dates whereas the hardworking and honest is punished by having to free two slaves who he worked hard to be able to afford. Physical suffering is relative. And I don't see how feeding your family some dates is punishment. Are you implying here that all poor people are poor cuz they are stid and lazy? If not, then without further ado, please answer my question - How Just, is it to make one suffer more than another, for the same sin? The punishment for fornication is 100 lashes, but what if someone has CIPA and the man she slept with did not? He would receive the same punishment...and it would be painful for him but the woman he slept with wouldn't feel anything painful from 100 lashes. Why didn't Allah accommodate for that? Doesnt matter, repentance's what counts here. Someone fornicates several times and doesnt get caught but turns to Allah in sincere repentance, Allah may forgive. Banal doesn't mean wrong. But when its lies thats being banally dished out, its Goebbelsian! I'm just trying to get definitions for things. From what I've read in the Quran, Tafsir, and Hadith the definition of adultery is different for a woman than it is for a man. If a woman slept with her slave boy, she'd be found guilty of adultery. If a woman slept with a married male captive, she'd be found guilty of adultery. If a woman took a second husband, she'd be found guilty of adultery. Adultery/fornicartion is sexual relations out of wedlock. Where does the Quran say anyone can sleep with anyone out of wedlock?? And would you mind defining "corruption throughout the land"? That is a rather vague statement and open to interpretation. Crimes that affect the Law & Order and the society as a whole. Quran 9:5 A perfect example of 'taking out of context', not only shows your ignorance but also your duplicity. In the verses 1-7 of Surah 9 (Taubah), the term used is mushrikeen meaning here the idolaters of Makkah and addressed towards those who violated the peace treaty with the Prophet Muhammad. Its the same theme up to 9:16, Allah is instructing the Prophet Muhammad to free himself from the obligation to the peace treaty of Hudaybiah (made in 6 AH for a ten year period) which the idolaters of Quraysh violated in the second year and raided a tribe who were an ally of the Prophet. The verse gives specific instruction to fight those who violated the treaty and killed the allies of the Prophet. These verses in no way propagate or indicate the same treatment to other non-Muslims except under similar circumstances. Quran 9:29 and corresponding Tafsir: (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Tanw�r al-Miqb�s min Tafs�r Ibn �Abb�s, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an) This has been dealt with extensively and your allegations have been thoroughly refuted, yet you seem to have problems, comprehension problems perhaps. I'll make it simple for you, simple questions - "If Jizyah was a degrading tax as you allege then - 1. Why wasnt it collected from the non-Muslims who agreed to fight alonside the Muslims? 2. Why was it returned to the non-Muslims whom the Muslims coudnt protect? I couldnt check up on the Hadiths, another time InshaAllah. Never read it. Honestly. I typically stick to really early stuff. Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, al-Waqidi, the Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, etc.) And the biographies I do read were written prior to 1975...before there was any reason to sugar-coat, or in contrast--demonize. Ok, I'll try to believe that... I love it when Muslims bring this up. Please show me in your trustworthy sources where it says the Muslims were forced to leave Mecca. ....like the people aboard the Titanic werent forced to get off it when it was sinking.... like to play with words eh? When Ali was found in Muhammad's bed...was he forced to flee Mecca that night? What about Abu Bakr's daughter Asma? What about Bilal? Ammar? Kabbab? Abu Fakih? Umm Ubais? Nadia? and the rest.... What happened to Yasir, Sumayya, Abdullah ibn Yasir? Muir, Spencer & Co might have missed all them eh? And how did goods from Syria rightfully belong to the Muslims? If Muslim property in Mecca had been stolen, why didn't they go and get it from Mecca rather than steal goods from a trade caravan that didn't belong to them? I suppose "due process" was too advanced of a concept, even for the prophet of Allah. Syrian goods that was with whom? the Makkans. Part of which no doubt was made up of what the Muslims were FORCED to leave behind in Makkah. Proximity provided the Muslims the opportunity to try to regain what was theirs. And would you mind enlightening me on the "due process" back them. Perhaps Abu Jahl was ticked off that the Muslims had dared to threaten the trade caravan in the first place. Perhaps he was angry about the raid on a trade caravan in Nakhla and murder of an innocent merchant. Yeah Abu Jahl got ticked off.... as simple as that, while the Muslims having been put through all kinds of persecutions were supposed to ?what.... look up at the sky and hope Santa comes by with what was theirs? Can you please provide trustworthy sources that state Ka'b was planning to assassinate Muhammad? I don't mean sources 500+ years after the fact. Can you explain to me how expression of free speech harms Allah and his apostle? And if it does, then does that mean I can kill my pagan neighbor if he starts preaching against Islam and leading thousands of Muslims to leave Islam? That there was a war between Muslims and non-Muslims at the time of the alleged �assassination,� in the third year of the Hijrah, is an undeniable fact. The question is whether Ka�b was among the combatants or the non-combatants. If he actually joined hands with the enemies of Islam and placed himself among those who were fighting with the Muslims, and he was killed by the Muslims, can this be called a case of treachery, cruelty or butchery? That Ka�b had openly joined the combatants and become their ally is borne out by all historical accounts; nay, some of them go so far as to say that he had planned to murder the Prophet(P) treacherously. Here are a few authorities: �He went to the Quraish weeping over their killed (at Badr) and inciting them to fight with the Prophet.�¹ (The Prophet said): �He (Ka�b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting�² �And according to Kalbi, he united in a league with the Quraish before the curtains of the Ka�bah, to fight against the Muslims.�³ �And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the Prophet and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden.�⁴ Commenting on Bukhari�s report relating to the killing of Ka�b, the author of Fath al-Bari** relates the reports which we have quoted above from Zurqani, viz., Ka�b�s going to Makkah and inciting the Quraish entering into a league before the curtains of the Ka�bah to fight against the Muslims, the Holy Prophet�s declaration that he had assumed open enmity, and his plan to kill the Prophet by inviting him to a feast. Bukhari himself speaks of the incidents relating to the killing of Ka�b under headings in which the word harb (fighting) occurs, thus showing that he was looked upon as a combatant. Abu Dawud speaks of the incident under the heading, �When the enemy is attacked and he is unprepared,� showing that Ka�b was dealt with as an enemy at war with Muslims. And the comment on this is that �Ka�b used to incite people to murder the Muslims�; and discussing the legality of what the party sent out for the punishment of Ka�b did, the same commentator adds: �This is not allowed in the case of an enemy after security has been given to him or peace has been made with him � but it is allowed in the case of one who breaks the covenant and helps others in the murder of Muslims.� And Ibn Sa�d tells us that when the Jews complained to the Holy Prophet that their leader was killed, �he reminded them of his deeds and how he urged and incited (the Quraish) to fight against them,� and adds that �the Prophet then called upon them to make an agreement with him�, and this agreement �was afterwards in the possession of �Ali.� All this evidence is too clear to show that Ka�b was put to death for having broken the agreement with the Prophet and joining his enemies who were at war with him and he was therefore treated as a combatant, while the other Jews who did not go to this length, though they were not less active in speaking evil of the Holy Prophet, still lived at peace with him and all that they were required to do was to sign an agreement that they would not join hands with those who were at war with the Muslims. Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 10 ibid., vol. ii, p. 11 ibid. ibid., p. 12 http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-ii/ The crimes of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf - 1. Planned to assassinate the Prophet. 2. Treason, inciting war against the state. 3.Slandering women. Even if you were to reject no.1, you cant deny 2 and 3. To what extent is the freedom of expression? Does it accomodate treason and slandering? What does your good book say about 'freedom of expression'?... I'm curious. Muhammad said he was the messenger of God. He created the Islamic state in Medinah that never originally belonged to the Muslims in the first place. The people living in Medinah just didn't persecute the Muslims who supposedly fled there. (I could have sworn Muhammad ORDERED them to leave Mecca, but I'll have to remember where I read that.) And so, people had to stand behind Muhammad because Muhammad said so. In reality, that is what you are saying. So you're totally ignorant of the Pledges made at al Aqaba and the Ansars stand prior to the Batte of Badr..... I told you, learn some History.　 But is it perfection? Is it divine or isn't it? Did Allah inspire something to not be truly divine? Define 'perfection', not some dictionary definition, define 'perfection' in this context. Edited by Saladin - 03 September 2009 at 11:09am
	'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'

Mansoor_ali Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Male Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Status: Offline Points: 584	Post Options Post Reply Quote Mansoor_ali Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 27 August 2009 at 12:30pm
	The scholar Ulfat-Aziz-us-Samad says: ��To demand the price of blood in order to forgive the sins of men is to show a complete lack of mercy, and to punish a man who is not guilty for the sins of others, whether the former is willing or not, is the height of injustice.

Shasta'sAunt Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Female Joined: 29 March 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1930	Post Options Post Reply Quote Shasta'sAunt Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 27 August 2009 at 4:08am
	"If Jesus fulfilled the Law that has convicted the world of sin, then how did he atone for all that sin?" If Jesus atoned for all of the sin in the world, then why is there still sin?
	�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.� Eleanor Roosevelt

Natassia Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 16 July 2009 Status: Offline Points: 177	Post Options Post Reply Quote Natassia Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 24 August 2009 at 8:03am
	@ Nazarene/leland Jesus fulfilled the Levirite laws. He fulfilled the priesthood. He fulfilled the necessary atonement. Through Jesus we can be holy, pure, and redeemed. Thanks to him, the Temple curtain was torn. Yes, there are 6 verses that contain the words "atonement sacrifice." However, if you simply investigate the context of those verses you will find that entire chapters in the Torah are devoted to sacrificial atonement. Leviticus 9, for example, as well as Leviticus 16. In fact, there was an entire day devoted to atonement for the sins of the Israelites. 　 You wrote: Jeremiah 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? like i said the atonment came from babylon. remember the babylonions distroyed ALL WRITINGS of the isrealites. some 300yr or so Ezra did the best he could rewiting them from oral handme downs a few scrolls and "CHANALING". Can you please back up this statement with proof? Can you prove that Jeremiah 8:8 was not referring to the scribal traditions and rabbinic traditions found in the Talmud, for example? The Law of the LORD always stands...but its interpretation and application can most definitely be handled falsely. Also, can you please prove that entire chapters regarding atonement were fabrications from Babylon? Can you prove anything you wrote? 　 You wrote: so now your saying the " PAGENS " have been given the outer court? the "PAGEN ROMANS" have been given a place in the temple to worship??i don't think so. if you mean the PAGEN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH your correct! Like I said, Gentile does not always mean Christian. The two terms are not interchangeable. Therefore, historical and theological context must be taken into consideration. First of all, Revelation 11:2 is prophecy. I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months..." This means that the Gentiles were going to trample on Jerusalem for about 3 1/2 years. This has nothing to do with God giving pagans a place to worship within the outer court. 　 the rest of you post i'll leave to others to read the confustion for themselves.( CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY). It's not confusing to me and millions of other Christians just as molecular biology is confusing to many but not to molecular biologists.
	You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)

Nazarene Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Male Joined: 05 September 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 298	Post Options Post Reply Quote Nazarene Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 23 August 2009 at 9:08am
	salaam natassia you kept refering to " the law" as if you justified by it as a christian. but that can't be! christian teaching throws the "law" out the window.(pasted from another post) Paul nullifies the law when he states Galatians 3:11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." Galatians 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Galatians 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. leland Edited by Nazarene - 23 August 2009 at 9:10am
	love for all conquers all

Nazarene Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Male Joined: 05 September 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 298	Post Options Post Reply Quote Nazarene Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 23 August 2009 at 7:21am
	salaams natassia you state: The Torah (Hebrew for "Law") required atonement all over the place. Do a search for the words "atonement sacrifice" on biblegateway.com. See what comes up. ok i did and got 7 verses. 1 from Exodus 5 from Levitcus 1 from Romans. also note according to Hebrews Jesus replaced the levitcal priesthood . and made it obsolite. Jeremiah 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? like i said the atonment came from babylon. remember the babylonions distroyed ALL WRITINGS of the isrealites. some 300yr or so Ezra did the best he could rewiting them from oral handme downs a few scrolls and "CHANALING". 1. Gentiles = non-Jews. The pagan Romans were Gentiles. "Gentile" does not necessarily mean Christian. so now your saying the " PAGENS " have been given the outer court? the "PAGEN ROMANS" have been given a place in the temple to worship??i don't think so. if you mean the PAGEN ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH your correct! the rest of you post i'll leave to others to read the confustion for themselves.( CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY). leland Edited by Nazarene - 23 August 2009 at 8:57am
	love for all conquers all

Natassia Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 16 July 2009 Status: Offline Points: 177	Post Options Post Reply Quote Natassia Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 22 August 2009 at 10:19pm
	@ Nazarene/leland You wrote: where does it state the law requiers atonement?? the sacrifice of atonement did not exsist at the time the law was given. the atonement sacrifice came out of babylon when they relesed the jews. the atonement was a false practice. it never happened in the time of moses. the atonement was later practied in the outer court of the temple hence the condemnation of the cristians in the book of revelation The Torah (Hebrew for "Law") required atonement all over the place. Do a search for the words "atonement sacrifice" on biblegateway.com. See what comes up. You wrote: Revelation 111I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. gentiles here are the christians. what other gentiles were given a place in the HOLY TEMPLE? and the term christian was first used to discribe the GENTILE followers of the christ in antioch. 30 yrs after the suffering of the christ. If you are going to attempt to interpret the book of Revelations, the most mysterious, symbolic, and apocalyptic book in the Bible...you had better brush up on your history and theology. 1. Gentiles = non-Jews. The pagan Romans were Gentiles. "Gentile" does not necessarily mean Christian. 2. There are multiple types of interpretative angles for the book of Revelation: historicist, idealist, preterist, futuristic, etc. If you do not know which angle you are attempting to interpret the book of Revelation, then it is likely that your interpretation is going to be way off target. 3. Since the apostle Paul was killed within 30 years of Christ's death, and he was ministering long before he was killed...then it is inaccurate to say that the term "Christian" was not coined until 30 years after the death of Christ. You wrote: your contradicting yourself here also: And just as your word comes from you and is you, so does the Word of God come from God and is God. Jesus is the Word of God. So no, he is not the Father, but he is the Word. you state THE WORD OF GOD COME FROM GOD AND IS GOD. then you say: JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD SO "NO" HE IS NOT GOD. BUT THE WORD. as if the word is seperate from god and not god. your lost within yourself. arguing for the sake of it . as if your trying talk youself into believing your right. leland Wrong. I said Jesus is the Word of God and he is not the FATHER. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Spirit is God. God is not just the Son or just the Father or just the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God, but Jesus is not the Father. The Father is God, but the Father is not Jesus. The Holy Spirit is God and the Spirit is in Jesus and the Father. The Spirit is what connects us to God as well. (Looks like you might need to brush up on the Christian theology of the nature of God as well.) Edited by Natassia - 22 August 2009 at 10:20pm
	You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)

Nazarene Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Male Joined: 05 September 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 298	Post Options Post Reply Quote Nazarene Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 22 August 2009 at 4:24pm
	salaams Natassa you state: No other prophet fulfilled the Law. To fulfill something means to carry it out to completion; to satisfy. The Law requires atonement. If Jesus fulfilled the Law that has convicted the world of sin, then how did he atone for all that sin? where does it state the law requiers atonement?? the sacrifice of atonement did not exsist at the time the law was given. the atonement sacrifice came out of babylon when they relesed the jews. the atonement was a false practice. it never happened in the time of moses. the atonement was later practied in the outer court of the temple hence the condemnation of the cristians in the book of revelation Revelation 11¹I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. ²But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. gentiles here are the christians. what other gentiles were given a place in the HOLY TEMPLE? and the term christian was first used to discribe the GENTILE followers of the christ in antioch. 30 yrs after the suffering of the christ. your contradicting yourself here also: And just as your word comes from you and is you, so does the Word of God come from God and is God. Jesus is the Word of God. So no, he is not the Father, but he is the Word. you state THE WORD OF GOD COME FROM GOD AND IS GOD. then you say: JESUS IS THE WORD OF GOD SO "NO" HE IS NOT GOD. BUT THE WORD. as if the word is seperate from god and not god. your lost within yourself. arguing for the sake of it . as if your trying talk youself into believing your right. leland Edited by Nazarene - 22 August 2009 at 4:28pm
	love for all conquers all