[Faith-talk] The Bible and the Law.

Wed May 28 20:58:58 UTC 2014

Hello Mustafa, your reply is good, but unfortunately you are trying to
diagnose something in the cars motor without opening the hood, you may be
able to draw on brawd inferences and attempt to use some methods of
deduction to solve the problem and feel that you are coming to a proper
conclusion, but when you write a sentence or two about a point of theology
and feel that you have solved the answer, or mystery about it, you walk in
error. I believe that we even talked about Adam in the garden when we were
on Skype and you seemed to be in accordance with the premise I put forth.
When Adam and eve had not yet sinned, their physical and Spiritual lives
were perfect and the touch of deaths degrading affects upon the body, the
mind, cells, the entire molecular structure of their anatomy had not been
touched by the finger of death, the moment they tasted from the tree, death
came upon them. Their bodies became like yours and mine, our bodies are
touched by death from the day we are born, every day we are moving on the
path of death, our cells, hair, heart, it is all aging and the final
conclusion to the disease called death is what we see when somebody finally
is laid into the ground. Now, if you want to discount whatever scriptures
you want in order to make your argument, then you are defining your own
rules of interpretation. You would first have to be able to discount any of
the books in the Bible that you don't want to be used in these discussions
and you would have to present a very exhaustive argument for the exclusion
of each book, not just some blanket statements and expect others to bow down
to your observations. Now, going back to Adam and the idea of a covenant,
you still have not given any reason why covenants are bad, or are not used
in the Bible. If this is a crucial point to understanding the Bible, and you
can acknowledge that they are in the Bible, but dismiss them, then you
again, are shaping your own argument according to your reasoning and not
taking into consideration the evidence laid out before you, you then create
an irrational argument based on your own narrow evidence, this is what a bad
prosecution looks like, excluding information/evidence in order to paint the
picture they want weather it is true or false. Also, who says that
Christians believe that Justice and grace cannot be compatible? Addressing
your question about the Old testament being one way and the New testament
being another, if you are really interested in understanding the
dispensation of truth and Gods plan of salvation then there is more than
enough information available to give you a balanced understanding of all of
this, but when you attack a mountain with a little hammer, you may want to
do some more surveying of the mountain in question.

-----Original Message-----
From: Faith-talk [mailto:faith-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mostafa
Almahdy via Faith-talk
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:32 AM
To: Brandon Olivares
Cc: Faith-talk, for the discussion of faith and religion
Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] The Bible and the Law.

Thank you all for writing me back.

I believe that Brandon is getting quite close to my crucial point.

We do not disagree on the existence or the documentation of the text.

We are in factional discernments because of how we interpret the text
that we knew it exists.

Let me clarify a bit further;

We find a text which the Gospel of Matthew attributes to Christ as he
asserts that he did not come to abolish the law, but to rather fulfill
it.

That text is reliable for Christians today, because it is kept in
their scriptures.

So if someone later in the book of Acts proclaims in some form or
another that he will abrogate, replace, cancel, alternate, or even
upgrade the law, he exactly goes against what Jesus explicitly
asserted back then.

If the chief of the supreme court has decreed a creed, can someone who
is lower than him in authority abrogate its legitimacy?

Christians consider Jesus to be divine, yet he said he will not
extinguish the law.

And then they come Peter or Paul, they basicly dismiss the denotative
commandment of Christ and they say they will do away with the law
which Jesus incisively conforms he comes to fulfill.

I believe the one who constitutes a principled legislation is  only
the one who can later abrogate it.

I also want to look at another aspect of Christianity.

Christianity believes that Jesus brought the message of love and mercy.

So does it mean that the former message was of wrath, damnation and misery?

As Muslims, we believe in the one covenant of Allah glory be to Him.

Poppa Bear unambiguously  mentioned the contract that was made with Adam.

Perhaps he meant the divine injunction of not to eat from the forbidden
trea.

As I mentioned in  many times before, the story is quite similar in
the Koranic narration, unless therein, they were given the chance to
basicly repent.

But for Adam and Eve in the Bible, they were not given the chance to repent.

They were cursed, expelled, and the temptation to eat from the
forbidden trea was blamed on Eve, as exactly it was blamed on the
devil, which is graphically portrayed as a cerpent in Genesis.

Adam was told that if he eats from the forbidden trea, surely a death
he shall die.

But did he die?

I am afraid, he actually did not.

I do not want to hear about the spiritual death interpretation,
because the commandments of God are plain, explicit, straightforward,
and they do not rely on metaphorical based.

The question which I repeatedly raised on that regard;

Was not God capable of giving them the chance to basicly repent?,
especially if it  was their ever first time to sin.

I think I asked that question many times before.

Christians inaccurately assume that justice and grace contradict with
each other.

Who said they do?

They are quite applicable with each other if the wisdom of God intervened.

If someone sinned, he can basicly return to Allah with weep, regret
and repentance.

I believe we need to think about that.

Thank you, and have a pleasant time.

On 5/28/14, Brandon Olivares <programmer2188 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mostafa,
>
> I think you are quite right here. Jesus himself said he did not come to
> replace the law:
>
> Matthew 5:17-18
>
> 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
have
> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 For truly I tell you,
until
> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
of
> a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
> accomplished.
>
> Make of it what you will.
>
> Not to be crass, but perhaps Peter just really wanted some pork. :)
>
> --
> Brandon
>
> www.EscapeTheDream.org: Put an End to Suffering and Return to Joy
>
> Latest blog post: The Illusion of Choice
>
> Facebook: Brandon.Olivares
> Twitter: @devbanana
>
> On May 28, 2014, at 1:32 AM, Mostafa Almahdy via Faith-talk
> <faith-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>>
>>
>> I appreciate everyone trying to explain.
>>
>> You all sound genuine in your attempts to express your point, and I
>> quite appreciate that.
>>
>> Let us not forget that the text of Matthew is uttered by Jesus, whilst
>> the text of acts is uttered by others.
>>
>> My question to Brandon was, can somebody else abrogate what Jesus said
>> he comes to fulfill?
>>
>> I want now to comment on the point that sister Linda articulated,
>> because it is a quite interesting one.
>>
>> Thank you so much Linda for conveying your contribution, I really
>> appreciate it.
>>
>> I believe I competently comprehend English.
>>
>> I never heard of  replace being the synonym of fulfill.
>>
>> I am not sure though, do we write  English properly here?
>>
>> Fulfill is interpreted as replace?
>>
>> I am afraid but I believe that such interpretation is lingually
>> incorrect.
>>
>> It does not work from even the metaphorical standpoint.
>>
>> Fulfillment is to bring an action into completion and fruition.
>>
>> Whilst replacement is the permutation of something by what equates it
>> in either its value or significance.
>>
>> Without being offensive, but I think we need to interpret things in
>> according to the common sense.
>>
>> I never claimed I am expert in the Bible.
>>
>> I am just countenancing my rational standards to determine the
>> sequential relationship among concepts and their based statements.
>>
>> If the Mosaic laws were abrogated by the teachings of Jesus, does that
>> include the condemnation and the decisively prescribed penalty of
>> lapidation regarding the trespass of homosexuality?
>>
>> So to be really crystal clear;
>>
>> Is that dietary tradition which is abrogated or the whole covenant?
>>
>> I believe we have instigated  a valuable scrutiny, and I am certainly
>> intrigued to carry on.
>>
>> I so much enjoy and I quite benefit from constantly interacting on the
>> faith talk list.
>>
>> I attentively follow the daily articles of brother Paul, and I learn
>> quite a lot from the well written essays he posts.
>>
>> I like the level of English he uses there.
>>
>> I have been a member of the  list since last August.
>>
>> I have been tremendously exposed to the Christian devotion and
>> earnestness about their faith.
>>
>> I believe we will continue to wholeheartedly disagree on the core of
>> what we believe.
>>
>> I hope we continue to do so, whilst showing empathy, honor and respect
>> to each other.
>>
>> I suggest that we may schedule  a regular meeting on Skype, in which
>> we can discuss faith related subjects.
>>
>> We may seek for mutually agreed upon subjects to begin with.
>>
>> I am sure we can think of many.
>>
>> It is faith that brought us together.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Peace, blessings, and much respect from me.
>>
>> Mostafa.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/28/14, debby phillips <semisweetdebby at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi! Well, you make some interesting points.  First of all, in the
>>> Acts of the Apostles, Peter has a vision where he is told to eat
>>> of all that is shone him.  (I'm paraphrasing).  He says, I can't
>>> do that, I've never eaten anything unclean.  He has the vision a
>>> couple more times.  Then Peter is told by the Lord that there are
>>> people waiting for him, Gentiles.  At that time, Jews were not
>>> supposed to even enter the house of a Gentile.  Then, as Paul
>>> begins preaching to the Gentiles, it comes down to the first
>>> Church Council and the decision is that Gentiles do not need to
>>> follow Jewish law, dietary or otherwise.  You can head all of
>>> this in Chapter 15 of Acts, also in Galatians where Paul tells
>>> the Gentiles not to let the Judaizers, (that is, those Jewish
>>> Christians who think that they need to make all Christians follow
>>> Jewish Law) from destroying them.  That's the beginning, I would
>>> say.  I'm sure POPPA Bear or someone will articulate this much
>>> better.    Peace,    Debby
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> (Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
>> shoreless ocean.)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Faith-talk mailing list
>> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> Faith-talk:
>>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/programmer2188%40gma
il.com
>
>

-- 
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
shoreless ocean.)

_______________________________________________
Faith-talk mailing list
Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Faith-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/heavens4real%40gmail
.com