IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - -
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


-

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Shasta'sAunt View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Female
Joined: 29 March 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1930
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shasta'sAunt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: -
    Posted: 10 August 2009 at 5:05pm
"Christians quote Mosaic laws out of expediency for the moment, all based upon "conjecture". Jesus never intended to form a new faith. Even Paul is guilty of piouse fraud in his teachings while trying to use the hebrew scriptures to bolster his position."
 
The scriptures of expediency. Jesus was the Messiah because he fulfills the prohesies of the scriptures so therefore we must follow him, but there is no need to follow the Laws that he followed or the doctrines of those same scriptures because they do not apply to you, his followers.
 
Convoluted at best.


Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 10 August 2009 at 5:09pm
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 August 2009 at 11:50pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt Shasta'sAunt wrote:

What you seem to place such a huge emphasis on ("tradition") is merely commentary and miniscule in importance to the basic theology: Christ saves.  Also, the Law has remained steadfast:
 
Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
 
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
 
Love your neighbor as yourself.
 
Honor your father and mother.
 
Do not bear false testimony.
 
Do not steal.
 
Do not commit adultery.
 
Do not murder.
 
These laws convict us of sin.  They always have, and they always will.  The Bible may not have a single author, and there may be factual contradictions within it, but the Bible has one coherent thought throughout the entire thing:
 
No matter what humanity does as it exercises Free Will, God's Will is always done.  God will save His chosen ones...whoever they may be.  He knows who they are--He has known since the beginning of time.  And for those chosen, He has provided salvation through JUSTICE AND MERCY because the Law cannot be abolished, and the debt of sin must be paid.
 
Now I am confused because every Christian on this forum except you has claimed that the Mosaic Laws no longer matter. Wait, you claimed that also, I believe you said that the gentiles were under the Noahide Laws. So which Law has remained steadfast and cannot be abolished?
 
According to Jesus that would be the Mosaic Laws. According to every current Christian in the world except you there is no longer any Law because Jesus fulfulled the Law and all of the old covenants no longer matter. According to the Jews, there are 7 Noahide laws, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with Christianity.
 
Please clarify which Law you are referring to.
 
I disagree that the Laws convict us of sin, man commits his own sin, the Laws merely state what sins we should strive to avoid. And yes, sin must be paid for, but by the sinner, not a third party. Otherwise what is the point?
 
It doesn't matter if we have an isnad or not for the gospels or epistles.  It doesn't matter if something was actually written by Paul or a devoted follower was simply writing something under his name (common in 1st & 2nd centuries.)
 
What matters is the doctrine and beliefs.
 
But isn't the author the heart of the matter? If you claim to be a Christian and follow the teachings of Jesus, shouldn't you know what those teachings are? Since Paul was not a disciple of Jesus, never met Jesus, and did not become a follower until after the death of Jesus, how is it that the doctrines that Christians follow today are those of Paul?  And most bear little resemblance to anything that Jesus taught, or at least what others have written of the teachings of Jesus. Since Jesus did not leave a written gospel then we will never really know.
Christians quote Mosaic laws out of expediency for the moment, all based upon "conjecture". Jesus never intended to form a new faith. Even Paul is guilty of piouse fraud in his teachings while trying to use the hebrew scriptures to bolster his position.
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 August 2009 at 11:48pm

Originally posted by Natassia Natassia wrote:

@ Andalus...

 

I don't think you understand...

 

It doesn't matter if we have an isnad or not for the gospels or epistles.  It doesn't matter if something was actually written by Paul or a devoted follower was simply writing something under his name (common in 1st & 2nd centuries.)

 

What matters is the doctrine and beliefs.

 

 

Doctrine and belief are not worth spit if the sources for deriving belief and doctrine are equivalent to “gossip” and “hearsay”. Without any kind of methodology to control the transmission or to know the sources or the authors, doctrine and belief cannot be given any more confidence than the sources, and they could easily be the ranting of liars. The point is, you do not know.

Quote

 

Muslims claim to have this "science of hadith," as if by using the word science they validate their processes of concluding the authenticity of a hadith.  Those sayings are 1200 years old.  1200.  I'm sorry, but studying them now is not going to make them any "stronger" or "weaker" than they were considered to be according to early Islamic scholars like Ibn Kathir.

 

 

 

This is pretty incoherent, which tells me you know even less then I do about the subject, which is actually pretty bad given I am not a scholar but a novice who does not blindly follow any belief.  

 

No Mulsim believes that using the word science necessarily gives confidence. Your assertion really brands us as complete idiots and your over simplification of the matter speaks volumes for your claimed sincerity. I think it was Chuang Tsu who said that names are but shadows of reality. It is not the naming of a particular field of study that gives confidence; it is the actual methodology that is used in the field of study that gives confidence. A scholar does not make “taqlid” on, say Bukharis work, a true scholar does make their own study for whatever particular matter is being addressed. If the setting is now, then they are studied now, if it was 500 years ago, then it was in the past. The setting is irrelevant since the chains of narration and lists of narrators and such have been around since before even Imam Bukhari was born. That Ibn Kathir may feel a hadith is weak only tells a small part of the story since his stating of such would be for a particular matter. There is more than just assigning a hadith as being weak or strong. MUCH more.

 

 

Quote

 

The whole foundation of this "science" is the assumption that the narrators were honest in the first place.  Imagine if Abu Huraira and Aisha were liars.  What then?  How many of the so-called "Sahih" Hadith were reported by them? 

 

 

You assume your mother tells you the truth when she says she is your mother, unless something does not make sense, then you might investigate her claim. Many things in your life you assume some truth on the part of someone. You assume Paul tells the truth, you assume the narrators of the gospels all told the truth, you assume the copyists all told the truth. You are now trying to create a strawman. If you have more than one sahaba telling a narrative, and you find independent people narrating the story from each, and independent narrators in different regions who do not know each other also narrating, then it is nearly impossible for the narrative to be a lie; unless all of the sahabas were conspiring with each other. If this is true, then you must show where something does not make sense to bring suspicion, and make your case. Believe me when I tell you that when something did not make sense, the scholars classified it in a certain way and the narrative is limited in value. Not all hadiths can be used to interpret acts of worship and such. We are not talking about some kind of absolute truth, we are talking about a system that gives “confidence”.

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

So, not only must you ASSUME that Muhammad was completely honest with his revelations, but you must also ASSUME that Aisha and Abu Huraira were as well...not to mention Uthman and the role he played in the compiling of the Quran.

 

This is more of your attempt to distract. You assume your father was your father and you mother was completely honest and did not step out on your father. Right? You assume the author of Acts was completely honest and recalled events honestly without motivation. We all assume many things in life. If something does not make sense, if some fact comes to surface place doubt on some truth of our, then we investigate. If you have evidence to suggest anyone was lying, then produce your evidence? God knows many people tried in the days of the Prophet (saw).

 

To say the companions “could have lied” is simply an assertion without merit, and the critical techniques that scholars have appealed to for centuries have done an amazing job at keeping things “square”. Unlike your traditions which were part of an oral tradition where many other gospel accounts were floating around, and the group that chose your current ones did not have any critical methods for discerning between fabicated accounts vs authentic accounts. In fact, many mainstream scholars will admit that there is a highly likely chance that fabircation made it into your sources.

 

Quote

 

One need only seek the writings of early Christians to discover their views about Christ...and for the most part, they agree with the theology presented in the New Testament scriptures.

 

 

No, this is not entirely correct. More accurately, one only needs to refer to the current Christian sources to understand how the “proto-orthodox” thought about Christ (the group you have inherited your traditions from), which is not necessarily how Christ thought or what he believed. Furthermore, there is also a great deal of lobored interpretation that goes on with connecting church beliefs and what is in your current sources.

 

Quote

 

 

There is only one "gospel," and that gospel points to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior...one need only repent and believe.

 

 

 

Rubbish. You have no claim with any amount of confidence that you know what Jesus wanted in terms of theology.

 

 

Quote

What you seem to place such a huge emphasis on ("tradition") is merely commentary and miniscule in importance to the basic theology: Christ saves.  Also, the Law has remained steadfast:

 

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

 

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

 

Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

Honor your father and mother.

 

Do not bear false testimony.

 

Do not steal.

 

Do not commit adultery.

 

Do not murder.

 

 

 

 

Typical Christian. You conveniently left out all the other mitzvahs. You guys pick and choose out of expediency, not knowledge, just conjecture.

 

Quote

 

 

These laws convict us of sin.  They always have, and they always will.  The Bible may not have a single author, and there may be factual contradictions within it, but the Bible has one coherent thought throughout the entire thing:

 

 

 

If this is true, then your god has a great deal of personal issues. Imagine if parents had a child with legs missing, and then expected the child to enter a marathon and win, and then punish the hell out of the child for not being able to get across the start line. This is Church theology in a nutshell. You propose that God creates us, gives us laws He knows we cannot follow, and then punishes us for it. How convoluted a theology you follow. Really. As I said, your sources might have been transmitted by lunatics or even liars. How else could you come to a conclusion so absurd that God is a nut?

 

 

Quote

 

No matter what humanity does as it exercises Free Will, God's Will is always done.  God will save His chosen ones...whoever they may be.  He knows who they are--He has known since the beginning of time.  And for those chosen, He has provided salvation through JUSTICE AND MERCY because the Law cannot be abolished, and the debt of sin must be paid.

 

 

Yes….in your theological model, His Will is to create us knowingly incapable of following laws He would give us so that he could punish us for not being able to keep them. Good luck to you and your relationship with God.

 

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
Back to Top
Hayfa View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Female
Joined: 07 June 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2369
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hayfa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 August 2009 at 5:10am
And if you list the "Laws" what are the consequences? Are the penalties spelled out? 
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi
Back to Top
Shasta'sAunt View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Female
Joined: 29 March 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1930
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shasta'sAunt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 9:10pm
What you seem to place such a huge emphasis on ("tradition") is merely commentary and miniscule in importance to the basic theology: Christ saves.  Also, the Law has remained steadfast:
 
Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
 
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
 
Love your neighbor as yourself.
 
Honor your father and mother.
 
Do not bear false testimony.
 
Do not steal.
 
Do not commit adultery.
 
Do not murder.
 
These laws convict us of sin.  They always have, and they always will.  The Bible may not have a single author, and there may be factual contradictions within it, but the Bible has one coherent thought throughout the entire thing:
 
No matter what humanity does as it exercises Free Will, God's Will is always done.  God will save His chosen ones...whoever they may be.  He knows who they are--He has known since the beginning of time.  And for those chosen, He has provided salvation through JUSTICE AND MERCY because the Law cannot be abolished, and the debt of sin must be paid.
 
Now I am confused because every Christian on this forum except you has claimed that the Mosaic Laws no longer matter. Wait, you claimed that also, I believe you said that the gentiles were under the Noahide Laws. So which Law has remained steadfast and cannot be abolished?
 
According to Jesus that would be the Mosaic Laws. According to every current Christian in the world except you there is no longer any Law because Jesus fulfulled the Law and all of the old covenants no longer matter. According to the Jews, there are 7 Noahide laws, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with Christianity.
 
Please clarify which Law you are referring to.
 
I disagree that the Laws convict us of sin, man commits his own sin, the Laws merely state what sins we should strive to avoid. And yes, sin must be paid for, but by the sinner, not a third party. Otherwise what is the point?
 
It doesn't matter if we have an isnad or not for the gospels or epistles.  It doesn't matter if something was actually written by Paul or a devoted follower was simply writing something under his name (common in 1st & 2nd centuries.)
 
What matters is the doctrine and beliefs.
 
But isn't the author the heart of the matter? If you claim to be a Christian and follow the teachings of Jesus, shouldn't you know what those teachings are? Since Paul was not a disciple of Jesus, never met Jesus, and did not become a follower until after the death of Jesus, how is it that the doctrines that Christians follow today are those of Paul?  And most bear little resemblance to anything that Jesus taught, or at least what others have written of the teachings of Jesus. Since Jesus did not leave a written gospel then we will never really know.
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2009 at 8:12pm
Originally posted by believer believer wrote:

The Holy Bible is the inspired Word of GOD.  Jesus was the living WORD of GOD.

Of course the Scriptures that Paul is referring to that proclaimed:
 
Christ died for our sins, he was buried, that he was raised on the third day.
 
Of course the Holy Bible didn't exist at the time of Paul, but letters and manuscripts did that were collected into it.
 
There is a bit of papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37 dating from 125 AD. 
 

 

l

 

 

l

Book Author Date Written (A.D)
Matthew Matthew 60's
Mark John Mark late 50's
early 60's
Luke Luke 60
John John late 80's
early 90's
Acts Luke 61
Romans Paul 55
1 Corinthians Paul 54
2 Corinthians Paul 55
Galatians Paul 49
Ephesians Paul 60
Philippians Paul 61
Colossians Paul 60
1 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51
2 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51
1 Timothy Paul 62
2 Timothy Paul 63
Titus Paul 62
Philemon Paul 60
Hebrews (Paul, Apollos, Barnabas...?) 60's
James James, half brother of Jesus 40's or 50's
1 Peter Peter 63
2 Peter Peter 63 - 64
1 John John late 80's
early 90's
2 John John late 80's
early 90's
3 John John late 80's
early 90's
Jude Jude, half brother of Jesus 60's or 70's
Revelation John late 80's
early 90's
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Another incoherent copy and paste from Believer. I am suprised? LOL
 
 
This topic has been discussed to death and if you did not see the thread between me an apollos, then please refer to it and repsond to the appropriate material Since I have already discussed this, I will refer you to some strong sources. Enjoy:
 
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
Back to Top
Natassia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 16 July 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Natassia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 July 2009 at 7:57pm
@ Andalus...
 
I don't think you understand...
 
It doesn't matter if we have an isnad or not for the gospels or epistles.  It doesn't matter if something was actually written by Paul or a devoted follower was simply writing something under his name (common in 1st & 2nd centuries.)
 
What matters is the doctrine and beliefs.
 
Muslims claim to have this "science of hadith," as if by using the word science they validate their processes of concluding the authenticity of a hadith.  Those sayings are 1200 years old.  1200.  I'm sorry, but studying them now is not going to make them any "stronger" or "weaker" than they were considered to be according to early Islamic scholars like Ibn Kathir.
 
The whole foundation of this "science" is the assumption that the narrators were honest in the first place.  Imagine if Abu Huraira and Aisha were liars.  What then?  How many of the so-called "Sahih" Hadith were reported by them? 
 
So, not only must you ASSUME that Muhammad was completely honest with his revelations, but you must also ASSUME that Aisha and Abu Huraira were as well...not to mention Uthman and the role he played in the compiling of the Quran.
 
One need only seek the writings of early Christians to discover their views about Christ...and for the most part, they agree with the theology presented in the New Testament scriptures.
 
There is only one "gospel," and that gospel points to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior...one need only repent and believe.
 
What you seem to place such a huge emphasis on ("tradition") is merely commentary and miniscule in importance to the basic theology: Christ saves.  Also, the Law has remained steadfast:
 
Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
 
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
 
Love your neighbor as yourself.
 
Honor your father and mother.
 
Do not bear false testimony.
 
Do not steal.
 
Do not commit adultery.
 
Do not murder.
 
These laws convict us of sin.  They always have, and they always will.  The Bible may not have a single author, and there may be factual contradictions within it, but the Bible has one coherent thought throughout the entire thing:
 
No matter what humanity does as it exercises Free Will, God's Will is always done.  God will save His chosen ones...whoever they may be.  He knows who they are--He has known since the beginning of time.  And for those chosen, He has provided salvation through JUSTICE AND MERCY because the Law cannot be abolished, and the debt of sin must be paid.
Back to Top
believer View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 08 January 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1397
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote believer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 July 2009 at 6:28am

The Holy Bible is the inspired Word of GOD.  Jesus was the living WORD of GOD.

Of course the Scriptures that Paul is referring to that proclaimed:
 
Christ died for our sins, he was buried, that he was raised on the third day.
 
Of course the Holy Bible didn't exist at the time of Paul, but letters and manuscripts did that were collected into it.
 
There is a bit of papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37 dating from 125 AD. 
 

 

l

 

 

l

Book Author Date Written (A.D)
Matthew Matthew 60's
Mark John Mark late 50's
early 60's
Luke Luke 60
John John late 80's
early 90's
Acts Luke 61
Romans Paul 55
1 Corinthians Paul 54
2 Corinthians Paul 55
Galatians Paul 49
Ephesians Paul 60
Philippians Paul 61
Colossians Paul 60
1 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51
2 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51
1 Timothy Paul 62
2 Timothy Paul 63
Titus Paul 62
Philemon Paul 60
Hebrews (Paul, Apollos, Barnabas...?) 60's
James James, half brother of Jesus 40's or 50's
1 Peter Peter 63
2 Peter Peter 63 - 64
1 John John late 80's
early 90's
2 John John late 80's
early 90's
3 John John late 80's
early 90's
Jude Jude, half brother of Jesus 60's or 70's
Revelation John late 80's
early 90's
 
 


Edited by believer - 28 July 2009 at 6:32am
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.