[Faith-talk] The Bible and the Law.

Thu May 29 19:02:35 UTC 2014

Sorry for the misspell, I did not mean the bell. I meant the bill.

On 5/29/14, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.)
>

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