[Faith-talk] The Bible and the Law.

Thu May 29 18:23:32 UTC 2014

Debby, I knew what chapter five of Matthew said.

Jesus did not give you the permission to eat pork, to drink alcohol,
to eat unclean animals, animals that are not slautered for food.

Peter saw a vision, and he even said; I never ate something unclean.

He was amazed, it is something that he would have never done whilst
Jesus Christ was there.

And again, as I said before, I knew Coptics who would never approach
the pork, they will never drink alcohol, let alone unclean bief.

Now, let us get to the clear wrongfulness of Poppa Bear.

He hardly trys to imply that people die because of what they call in
Christianity the ancestral  sin.

The sinful action is patrimonial for Christians.

So, does it mean that people die when the sinfulness entered into the world?

Two questions then;

1; Why there are other creatures who die whilst they are irrelevant to
the supposedly imposed retribution?

2; According to what Christians believe, Jesus was crucified to atone
humanity from its hereditary  wickedness.

So as for Jesus died for our sins, he supposedly paid the bell.

Why we are still dying?, either spiritually or physically.

I believe we should think a little before we utter any random explanations.

I never heard of such doctrine that death is caused by the sin of Adam.

So if Adam had not sinned, would have not we been dying?

Would have we been infinite?
Let us now get back to the main point.

I believe that Christians today should critically reconsider their
apprehension of the dietary statute  and its parental essence with
what Jesus peace be upon him said he has to fulfill.

Jesus did not explicitly permit to you to eat from that what is
prohibited for Jews.

He talked about moral standards, and they are primarily pertained to
what you should have of clean food for you and for your household.

Let me be quite outspoken with you.

I believe that Christians today have evidently violated and
extraordinarily perverted the covenant.

They selectively approve what satisfys their desire and they basicly
abandon what does otherwise.

I want someone to search the Bible from the beginning of Genesis to
the end of Revelation, and let him just find for me something that
Jesus explicitly uttered in which he plainly abrogates the passage of
Matthew, the statement in which he says he shall fulfill the law and
the prophets.

I accuse Christian missionary activists of textual selectiveness and
of interpretative distortions.

They condemn homosexuality and they consent alcoholic beverages.

Yet they are both reprobated  in the same covenant of the divine statuary.

I fathom we will never agree on that regard, and we are not expected to.

I am just asking you to refrain from the preconceived notions of
deliberately selecting these contorted conclusions.

Why Allah forbids intoxicants for Jews and Muslims, and He favorably
makes it permissible for you.

I am afraid but it does not make any sense to me.

I cannot measure its justification with my humble intellects.

If you know someone who is involved in the pastoral profession, I can
felicitously converse with him on Skype.

I am available to talk on either Friday and Saturday morning my time.

Please pay attention that I live in Egypt, and that you are mostly
seven hours behind us.

On 5/28/14, Poppa Bear <heavens4real at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>

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