Everything that I loved about Christianity I got to bring into Islam. I didn’t see Islam as an abandonment of my Christian upbringing. I saw it as a fulfillment of it…
*) American Islamic scholar, and is co-founder of Zaytuna College.
Categories: Christianity, Islam, Judaism
Blogging Theology 
Imagine were it not for all the lies, fear, and propaganda, how many Christians would finally realize that their religion has been corrupted, and that monotheism is the truth, and would embrace Islam?
LikeLiked by 1 person
When you become a sunni muslim you will discover that true monotheism is believing in the Quran alone and that hadiths(good and bad) are just satanic inspired lies writen by men.
LikeLike
Yawn. Qur’ān mandates adherence to the Sunnah of him upon whom it was revealed ﷺ. Neglect of one is neglect of both (at user’s own risk).
But I guess to some, throwing out the baby with the bathwater passes for a reasonable principle in implementing the Qur’ān. And why single out Sunnīs? Shī`ahs and Ibādīs look to hadīths to derive the Sunnah as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ziedzouaoui
So hadiths like “[In prayer] the Imam must be followed. So recited takbir when he recites it, and bow down when he bows…” which has been recorded at least 124 times, by 26 third-generation authorities at ten locations simultaneously (Madinah, Makkah, Egypt, Basra, Hims, Yemen, Kufa, Syria, Wasit, and Ta’if) who unanimously trace its origin to at least 10 Companions of the Prophet is just a “satanic inspired lie”?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Following books made by men (200 years after the prophet) is associating with God. The Quran doesn’t allow any hadith to be followed with it. Peace.
LikeLike
200 years? That’s all you got? Sorry, you don’t know anything.
LikeLike
Wisdom is more important.
LikeLike
Except it can’t be wisdom if there’s no knowledge behind it and you’re obviously just parroting something you read on some Quranist site.
LikeLike
If everyone thinks that the religion of his parents is the truth then there is no falsehood everyone is on the right path.
LikeLike
Yeah. I’m a convert, chief.
LikeLike
Ok then my advice will be that you should not follow anyone or any majority or minority (even me) being a sheep gets us to hell. You may start by questining hadith, if only you want advice.
LikeLike
I don’t usually take advice from parrots. And just so you know (since you don’t seem to), there isn’t anybody who DOESN’T question hadīths. In matters of creed, I DON’T blindly follow. But you’re just parroting that “200 years” nonsense, which leads me think blind-following is all you’re doing at the moment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Calling a quranist a parrot is the most illogical thing one can ever say. A quranist is a person who thinks for himself.
LikeLike
I’m basing it off observation. You’re repeating their falsehood. If you really thought for yourself, you’d know better and not be a parrot.
If you’re sincere, ask questions. Don’t bust up in here parroting that tired old “200 year” business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok lets get to the point and stop calling others names. Isn’t it true that the book is 250 years old?
LikeLike
Oh, 250 now. Which book?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There many books im talking about the famous bukhari book
LikeLike
Yes. There are many books. And here you are talking like Imam al-Bukhari’s compilation is the earliest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So give me a book of hadith from the time of the prophet. Then we will see if you should follow that book.
LikeLike
Why would you need one? What kind of silly goal-post moving is that? And you’ve done nothing yet to demonstrate you’re anything more than a parrot, so you’re changing the subject.
But fine. So do you think the Imams Nu`man bin Thabit or Malik ibn Anas were some kind of satans when they related, let’s say in Imam Malik’s case, from one person who related from a Sahabi?
Are you kidding?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok have faith in people.
LikeLike
وَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا إِنَّا أَطَعْنَا سَادَتَنَا وَكُبَرَاءَنَا فَأَضَلُّونَا السَّبِيلَا
And they will say, “Our Lord, indeed we obeyed our masters and our dignitaries, and they led us astray from the [right] way.
-Sourate Al-Ahzab, Aya 67
LikeLike
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt because you’re just a parrot and assume you don’t know the people you’re applying that verse to. And I’ll quote one of the best of them in response:
كلمة حق اريد بها باطل
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ziedzouaoui
Those 2nd century AH books are actually based on material collected during the Prophet’s time and after his death, such as the Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih who was a pupil of Abu Hurayrah (which is published[1]), and you find that many hadiths (98 IIRC) in it are all found in al-Bukhari and Muslim’s Sahih collection, and all of them are also found in Imam Ahmad’s Musnad, meaning they’ve been merged into them. So this idea that hadiths were written down only “200 years” after the Prophet’s death is contrary to all available evidence.
[1] : http://waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=2656
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thos books are not accepted by God my brother.
تِلْكَ آيَاتُ اللَّهِ نَتْلُوهَا عَلَيْكَ بِالْحَقِّ ۖ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَ اللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ يُؤْمِنُونَ
These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?
-Sourate Al-Jathiya, Aya 6
LikeLike
@ziedzouaoui
My brother, that verse doesn’t imply that the statements and deeds of the Prophet shouldn’t be followed.
Q 3:31-2: Say, ‘If you love God, follow me, and God will love you and forgive you your sins; God is most forgiving, most merciful.’ Say, ‘Obey God and the Messenger,’ but if they turn away, [know that] God does not love those who ignore [His commands].
LikeLiked by 3 people
Look here bro the prophet was forbidden from from uttering anything other than the Quran. Following the prophet is by following the Quran.
[That] indeed, the Qur’an is the word of a noble Messenger.
And it is not the word of a poet; little do you believe.
Nor the word of a soothsayer; little do you remember.
[It is] a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.
Had he ever uttered any other religious utterances (attributed to us).
-Sourate Al-Haqqah
LikeLike
We would have seized him by the right hand;
-Sourate Al-Haqqah
LikeLike
@ziedzouaoui
“Look here bro the prophet was forbidden from from uttering anything other than the Quran.”
Alas, you’re ignoring the verses and resorting instead to false implications. 69:44 says, “And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings, …” Where does it say what you suggest?
LikeLike
Religious sayings. We are talking about sayings other than the Quran here.
LikeLike
He was forbidden to utter any sayings other than the Quran.
LikeLike
Well I guess he didn’t get to bring his name with him. That appears to have been swallowed up by the religion of Arabism
LikeLike
I guess Sh. Hamza Yusuf is wise enough to adopt a better name.
Hamza (حمزة ) meaning strong or steadfast which is also the name of uncle of the holy Prophet who had helped him tremendously during his ministry and Yusuf is the name after a revered biblical Prophet: יוֹסֵף Yôsēp̄ or يوسف Yūsuf. Both are semitic names.
You on the other hand use a strange name, which has nothing to do with the semites an indication that you have been swallowed up by the religion of Latinism.
LikeLiked by 5 people
LOL, Cerbie is a follower of Latinism!
LikeLike
“ Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
Jesus’ own words falsify the claim made by the sheikh.
LikeLike
As always ZERO evidence Jesus said those words.
LikeLike
Haha- it’s from Mark 10, the same chapter Paul Williams uses in his dawah so you’ve just inadvertently dismissed Paul’s dawah attempts
LikeLike
Actually, Jesus’ own (alleged) words falsify himself, because he said he would be in the earth for 3 days and 3 nights (Matthew 12:40). You can’t fit 3 days and 3 nights from Friday to Sunday.
LikeLiked by 3 people
First of all I’m not PW.
Secondly, the reason we (including Br Paul) quote your bible verses is because you believe in them, not us.
Why do xtians always repeat that comment?
We don’t believe your book is inspired. And if you’re going to start with the boring old ‘argument’ that the Quran affirms your book then I invite you just visit this site for the refutation:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__
LikeLike
“three days and nights” is a Hebrew figure of speech referring to any part of three days and nights.
Now, how about you try not to deflect and deal with the text i cited? It clearly demonstrates that this Muslim is following conjecture, unless the Christianity he took across to Islam was some heretical version.
I never understand why muslim converts like this need to create fake parallels. It would not
Makes him look disceptive and dishonest
LikeLike
By default muslims do not reject the gospels wholesale. There are some resonances of the true Injeel of Prophet Isa. Those who are conversant with New Testament and who are sincere and using his God given intellect will naturally find the the Qur’an as connecting the dots. That’s how they filter the falsehood from the truth.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Lol, let me guess. You’ve studied Hebrew under some professor?
How conveniet that your god decided to use a “figure of speech”! Why didn’t he just clearly say that he would be in the earth for three days instead of erroneously adding three nights in there just for the sake of a “figure of speech”?
Oh and it’s not and deflection idiot. You’re the one who mentioned the verse. I’m just pointing out how you shot yourself in the foot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“As always ZERO evidence Jesus said those words.”
Evidence that it was the angel Gabriel who truly revealed the words of the Quran to pedo Mo?
LikeLike
AP,
“We don’t believe your book is inspired. ”
And we don’t believe your silly little book is inspired neither! LOL
My friend at the end of the day you guys believe in someone who nonced up a little child. So what makes you think you have any sort of authority to question the legitimacy of Christianity?
Islam is false. Period. So who the hell are you smelly Muslims to scrutinise Christians and think we should take you seriously?
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘who the hell are you smelly Muslims’
LOLOLOL what a demented child.
LikeLike
Bad sammie, you worship an old man from Canaan who ordered his minions to kill all living things (except for the virgins)! Why should anyone take you seriously?
LikeLike
Evidence that it was the angel Gabriel who truly revealed the words of the Quran to pedo Mo?
We believe Muhammad was a prophet of God so we don’t have to rely on historical evidence. Our faith that he received the words of God through the angel Gabriel rests on his prophethood. We have authentic narrations that the prophet said he received the Words of God through the Gabriel.
Your pornbook that has the 4 ‘biographies’ holds zero authenticity. If Jesus really said the things he said in your pornbook then we’ll accept it. You’re trying to equate the authenticity of a Prophet’s (Muhammad) claim with the authenticity of unknown potatoes who wrote those ‘gospels’. You are comparing apples and oranges. When a prophet makes a claim then that is true by divine revelation but when someone else says that a prophet said something then you need historical proof of that which YOU don’t have. Prophet Muhammad (saw) getting his revelation through the angel Gabriel was a statement by the Prophet and how do we know this? Because of authentic hadith. So we know he said this and because he is a prophet of God that claim is true. Now let’s apply this to your potato book. Jesus allegedly said the things you demented friend paulus quoted. How do we know this? We don’t! Cus your potato book has no authenticity. So you failed!
You truly are a FUCKING MORON sama.
“And we don’t believe your silly little book is inspired neither! LOL”
This was a response to your demented crosstian buddy paulus. He pretended that we think Mark 10 is true. We don’t. So you just embarrassed yourself as usual.
“My friend at the end of the day you guys believe in someone who nonced up a little child. So what makes you think you have any sort of authority to question the legitimacy of Christianity?”
You believe in a mangod who was squeezed out of a vagina you sick fuck. You believe in a pornbook thrown together by unknown authors so the question should be: who the fuck are you to even make a ‘peep’ sound about the religion of God Almighty which is Islam.
You can’t even bring ONE just ONE quote of ANYONE before the 20th century that criticized the Prophet (saw) for marrying Aisha at her young age. Not even ONE.
Come one sama. Bring all your cross worshiping friends together and try to bring ONE quote of ANYONE before the 20th century criticizing the Prophet for marring Aisha at her young age. A challenge that I have put forward countless of times but not ONE cross worshiping idiot that accepts the challenge.
Pathetic!
Your religion is garbage. Your book is moronic and only fit for people with porn addiction.
Now go worship you three gods fucking loser.
LikeLike
“Why didn’t he just clearly say that he would be in the earth for three days“
He did. “They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
A figure of speech is clear to native speakers of any language. Just because you, a secular western Muslim, doesn’t understand the nuances of other languages doesn’t make them incorrect. But of course you use english expressions all the time on this blog so your protestations is just smoke because like usual you are in over your head.
Eric- you won’t find a single nt expert who uses the Koran to interpret the gospels. Your approach is only what Muslims are forced to do because the Koran contradicts so much of the former prophets. So when thekoran affirms those formerprophets you are left creating this doctrine to pick up the pieces
LikeLike
Hahahaha, the prophecy was for “three days and three nights”, stupid. Stop lying for Jesus.
Scholars recognize the problem, even if brainwashed idiots like you don’t. See Geza Vermes, for example. He spoke and understood Hebrew. Are you telling me that he didn’t realize it was a “figure of speech”? When will you stop making a fool of yourself and stop pretending like you know something we don’t?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vermes showed that in Jewish thought, a part of a day could be interpreted as a full day and the same applied to nights. Based on this observation, he said that there is no way to fit 3 nights from Friday to Sunday morning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re hilarious. You first scoff at the idea of a figure of speech, then say “why didn’t a Hebrew speaker notice it” then you realise that that same Hebrew speaker did notice it. Did google help you again?
You refuted yourself it’s not worth talking to you.
Of course, I’d be happy to discuss the topic but you need to tell me whether it isn’t a figure of speech (your first wrong claim) or whether it is (now that you’ve googled it)?
LikeLike
LOL, Cerbie you pathetic wretch! As I said, your Bible says “three days and three nights”. I know you trinitarians have trouble counting, but try to keep up as I count with you:
3 days – Friday, Saturday, Sunday
3 nights – Friday night, Saturday night…oops! No third night!
And here is the quote from Geza Vermes, as quoted in one of my articles:
…Jesus was supposed to have resurrected after three days and three nights, as mentioned in the summary. Before we analyze this prophecy, it needs to be made clear that the time period of “three days and three nights” did not necessarily have to denote three 24-hour periods. Biblical scholar Geza Vermes states that according to “Jewish time reckoning”:
“…part of a day or night was accepted as a full day or night (yShab 12a; bPes4a)”(The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (London: Penguin Books, 2003), p. 183.).
However, even with this concession, it is plainly obvious that there is absolutely no way for the prophecy to have been fulfilled if Jesus died on Friday and resurrected on Sunday. As Vermes observes:
“This would allow us to count three days from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning, but no stretch of the imagination could fit three nights into that period” (Ibid.)
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/the-crucifixion-of-jesus-in-the-bible-and-the-quran/
Get it now? How long will you remain a loser?
LikeLike
Go back and have a read of Genesis 1. See if you can pick up how the hebrews understood what a day constituted. Then think about how when Jesus says he will “rise in three days” this is linked with “3 days and three nights”.
See if you can work it out without relying on google.
LikeLike
ROTFL!! So once again, Cerbie the neutered dog knows better than a respected scholar like Vermes? Well, how convenient!
LikeLike
The reward of being a sheep in the Quran .
وَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا إِنَّا أَطَعْنَا سَادَتَنَا وَكُبَرَاءَنَا فَأَضَلُّونَا السَّبِيلَا
And they will say, “Our Lord, indeed we obeyed our masters and our dignitaries, and they led us astray from the [right] way.
-Sourate Al-Ahzab, Aya 67
LikeLike
@ Abu Talhah
LikeLike
@ziedzouaoui
A post on the value of the Hadith tradition : https://modwestmuse.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/the-hadith-critical-method-and-its-criticisms-hadith-2-of-4/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for sharing, in the meanwhile i invite you to find a single evidence for the validity of the belief in hadith from the Quran.
LikeLike
Evidence 1:
“O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and do not invalidate your deeds.” (Qur’an, Muhammad 47:33)
We know how to obey Allah, Most Exalted: we heed the Qur’an (Allah’s words).
How do we obey the Messenger (peace be upon him)? By heeding his words.
Where are his words recorded? In the recorded reports attributed to him.
What are ‘reports’ called in Arabic? Hadiths.
(But Muslims have careful sifted through these reports, grading them to different levels of authenticity)
LikeLike
God and the Messanger are one in purpose so obeying God is obeying the prophet and the inverse is true. God and the Messenger are both inviting people to the truth. So people need to obey the Messenger when he invites them to the Quran.
This is how he invites them:
And when it is said to them, “Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,” you see the hypocrites turning away from you in aversion.[4:61].
And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah.[4:62]
O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.[8:24].
God and the Messenger are both bringing people out of darkness with the Quran which is sent by God. Therefore following the Messenger is by following the message that he follows and obeying him is by obeying the message that he obeys.
LikeLike
Hamza Yusuf Hanson? LOL
Another western wannabe Arab joker…
LikeLike
It’s so silly isn’t it? Who tells these converts to adopt a silly Arab name? Brainwashed
LikeLike
I know, right? So silly to have a name in a dead language like Lat…oh wait. Are you talking about Hamza Yusuf or yourself? Isn’t your full Latin name Cerberus paulus? You are included in the Canidae family which includes wolves and dogs, correct?
LikeLike
“Why didn’t he just clearly say that he would be in the earth for three days instead of erroneously adding three nights in there just for the sake of a “figure of speech”?”
I reply:
The phrase “the heart of the earth” doesn’t necessarily mean three days in the tomb.
He wasn’t three days in the tomb anyway.
It should be interpreted spiritually.
The time that Jesus was in the “heart of the earth” probably began at the time of his betrayal and arrest.
Your approach to the biblical text, especially prophecy, is often ham handed.
LikeLike
LOL, don’t make me laugh Ignoramus!
There is no evidence for your idiotic assertions. Isn’t it awfully convenient that you want to interpret “three days and three nights” and “heart of the earth” in a “spiritual” way? It seems whenever there is a contradiction in the Bible, you clowns appeal to “metaphors” and “spiritual meanings”.
His body was in the tomb for three days. He was buried on Friday and resurrected on Sunday. That’s three days. But there is no way you can fit three nights in there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
““This would allow us to count three days from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning, but no stretch of the imagination could fit three nights into that period” (Ibid.)”
The night of his arrest and betrayal belongs to the prophecy.
Three days and nights denotes a conscious spiritual experience beginning with his arrest and betrayal.
What matters is what Jesus consciously experiences in his soul beginning at the time of his arrest.
This is alluded to in the expression “in the heart of the earth”.
All the time that Jonah was in the belly of the whale he was alive, conscious and active. The state and location of his body in the tomb does not fully correspond to this and exhaust the meaning of the prophecy.
LikeLike
Blah, blah, blah. No evidence, only personal opinions. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?
Jonah was alive. Good point! That is another reason why the comparison does not work. Jonah never died! Jesus did allegedly die! So the prophecy is misused by the gospel writers and fails miserably.
LikeLike
Amazing what dead men can do!
1 Peter 3 v 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
LikeLike
Hahaha, but apparently some dead men could not count and thus made a false prophecy about when they would be resurrected!
LikeLike
The Cow
[2.65] And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.
The Women
[4.47] O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.
[4.154] And We lifted the mountain (Sainai) over them at (the li taking of the covenant) and We said to them: Enter the door making obeisance; and We said to them: Do not exceed the limits of the Sabbath, and We made with them a firm covenant.
The Elevated Places
[7.163] And ask them about the town which stood by the sea; when they exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, when their fish came to them on the day of their Sabbath, appearing on the surface of the water, and on the day on which they did not keep the Sabbath they did not come to them; thus did We try them because they transgressed.
The Bee
[16.124] The Sabbath was ordained only for those who differed about it, and most surely your Lord will judge between them on the resurrection day concerning that about which they differed.
The abrogator of the Sabbath condemns the Jews for breaking the Sabbath!
More than a touch of hypocrisy don’t you think?
LikeLike
Oh you idiot! Don’t you get tired of being exposed so much?
The Sabbath laws were for the Jews only, stupid. Many of their laws were enforced as a way of punishing them for their sins. Even the verse you quoted (16:124) says so! Notice that it says “for those who differed about it”.
But with the coming of Islam, many of these laws were abrogated and made easier. Thus, Muslims are not required to rest on Friday. We can make our Friday prayer and then return to our daily lives. Alhamdulillah!
LikeLike
So Allah words changed then haha
LikeLike
So Cerbie is back for more neutering. Hahaha.
Allah (swt) can abrogate previous laws and replace them with new ones, stupid.
But unlike Allah (swt), your pagan Canaanite god actually “regrets” doing something:
“The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled” (Gen. 6:6).
Cerbie’s god has regrets! Hahahaha!
LikeLike
“Allah (swt) can abrogate previous laws and replace them with new ones, stupid.”
So why all the complaining about Christians following the new covenant in this thread?
See, because you are so predictable, I knew you would give me an answer that demonstrates your utter hypocrisy toward other faiths, primarily Christians. Thanks!! Lol
LikeLike
LOL, are you really that dense? We are talking about a law being changed and replaced with a new law. The law is still in effect! Get it? But clowns like you claim that you no longer have to follow any of the laws! Well, not all of you clowns. Your fellow clown madman thinks that death for adultery and homosexuality (but not witchcraft) are still in effect: https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/11/28/im-so-hungry-i-could-eat-my-own-children-and-not-share-any-with-you-deuteronomy-2853-55/#comment-63197
See, because you are such an idiot, I knew you would set yourself up for yet another neutering. Thanks! LOL!!
LikeLike
“We are talking about a law being changed and replaced with a new law“
Let’s test this. I wanna see what Allah has to say.
Old law: day of atonement
New law in Islam: ?
LikeLike
ROFTL!! Cerbie got neutered and then moved the goalpost! So Cerbie, are you saying that there is no hypocrisy in Muslims for criticizing you clowns for ignoring the law completely?
Once again, the day of atonement was for the Jews only. They sinned. That’s why they had to atone.
For Muslims, it is required to attend Friday prayers, but then once finished, they may go about their daily business, so long as it is in accordance with Allah’s laws. As the Quran states:
“O ye who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business (and traffic): That is best for you if ye but knew! And when the Prayer is finished, then may ye disperse through the land, and seek of the Bounty of Allah: and celebrate the Praises of Allah often (and without stint): that ye may prosper” (62:9-10).
LikeLike
“Once again, the day of atonement was for the Jews only“
Says who? You? Show me where Allah abrogated this law. Then show me what the new law in Islam is. Remember, you claimed “Allah (swt) can abrogate previous laws and replace them with new ones, stupid.”
Let’s try again
Old law- levitical priests
New law in Islam?
Let’s see what Allah has to say about that one…
LikeLike
LOL, I guess you are that dense!
To whom was the Torah given, dummy? Hmm, let’s see…the Israelites! Yeah, that’s it! Thus, all of the laws of the Torah were for them, and not necessarily for all people. For sure, certain laws were for all times and all people, such as the prohibition of eating pork, but other laws for the Israelites only, such as the Sabbath law.
Either use you head or admit that you are an idiot grasping at straws.
LikeLike
I guess that’s strike two. Because you haven’t given any evidence that those laws were abrogated as per your claim.
Ergo, you can’t complain if Jews take back the Temple Mount and practice their god given laws. That’s the logical conclusion of your nonsense. If they aren’t abrogated they must still be in effect lest you admit that Allah’s laws have changed?
Let’s try again
Old law: Passover
New law in Islam…
LikeLike
ROTFL! Cerbie’s continuous neuterings have left him dazed and confused.
I know it’s difficult for brainwashed trinitarians to use their heads, so it’s no surprise that you are pretending like your asinine questions have not been answered. That’s the fruit of your pagan, Canaanite religion.
Let’s see if you will eventually figure it out that all the things you have asked about only apply to the Israelites, and thus do not have to apply to everyone else. That’s already 3 strikes for you! Or is it 3 wickets? Hahahahaha!
LikeLike
“Let’s see if you will eventually figure it out that all the things you have asked about only apply to the Israelites“
Do Allah didn’t abrogate them then as per your claim. Shocking!!
Secondly, by your logic you have no recourse to criticise Christians. If the laws were only ever meant to apply to the Israelites then you’ve just dismantled Islamic dawah and it’s criticism of Christian theology!
Don’t be fooled- you hyperbole doesn’t cover up your multitude of illlogical nonsense. We can all see that you big claim to save Islam only demonstrates how inconsistent muhammadism is. You follow man made conjecture not the words of Allah since you cannot provide evidence he abrogated the laws discussed. At least Christians have solid ground to stand on
LikeLike
The moron just doesn’t get it!
I already explained all this. Certain laws were for the Israelites only (e.g. not working on the Sabbath), while others were universal (e.g. prohibition of pork).
Christians, on the other hand, maintain that NONE of the laws apply anymore and ALL have been abrogated. There is a BIG difference there, dummy!
Poor, poor Cerbie. All you can do is repeat the same nonsense, like a dog endlessly howling at the moon.
LikeLike
No, I get it. Your earlier claim was simply false. You can’t show me where Allah abrogated the laws and replaced them with new ones. You say they were only for Jews as an attempt to save face but now you have no leverage to criticise Christians, not have you provided any reference for Allah telling us those laws were only for Jews. At least in our theology we have solid ground in seeing the laws fulfilled in christ.
Your a typical muhammadan- brainwashed to accept the masjid’s Propaganda. You don’t think for yourself. In the space of a few comments you demonstrated how absurd Islam’s position is. Your a masjidian. I don’t expect any less from you.
Now, if be happy to keep chatting once you show me where Allah abrogated the laws like you claimed. No more red herrings or insults. No more deflections. Show me.
LikeLike
“Many of their laws were enforced as a way of punishing them for their sins.”
That’s an asinine statement. What else does the law do in any case?
Care to provide an example?
Is the Sabbath an example of a “punishment” law?
How could Mohammed command the Jews to become Muslims and believe in him without making them rebel against their “punishment” laws?
LikeLike
Oh madman, you idiot. There are two aspects to the law, the part that prohibits something, and then the part that prescribes the punishment for breaking that law. The Jews were prohibited from working on the Sabbath. If anyone broke that law, they would be punished. But the law prohibiting working was in itself a punishment due to its difficulty. That is why it was abrogated and no longer required for Muslims. Muslims can go about their daily routine after they make their Friday prayers. The strict laws of the Jews were no longer applicable.
As I already pointed out to your fellow clown Ignoramus, the Quran states that the Sabbath law itself was given because the Jews differed about it. That was their punishment.
Here is another example of a law that was meant to punish the Jews for their sins:
“For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their wilful disobedience: for We are true (in Our ordinances)” (6:146).
The Quran also states that even Jesus (pbuh) abrogated some laws as per God’s commands:
““‘(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me. “‘It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight’”” (3:50-51).
LikeLike
There was no need for additional laws to punish the Jews because they were already built in to the law in the form of the curses listed in Deuteronomy.
To differ on the details of Sabbath observance is not necessarily a sin. Both sides could have been within the bounds of the law even though they differed on some details.
The idea that the Sabbath was given as a punishment or curse is blasphemous as it was patterned after God’s example of resting after his creative activity. Laws which are meant to sanctify the people cannot be designated as punishments, such as clean and unclean laws for example.
Also such a claim makes God unjust by perpetually punishing different people for the sins of another group of people committed in the past.
Obviously the whole thing is a heinous scheme with the purpose of perpetually defaming the Jews to whip up hatred against them for political purposes.
LikeLike
Blah, blah, blah. Once again, no scriptural support. Only madman’s own opinions.
Your own Bible says that God will punish successive generations for the sins of their ancestors, moron!
Obviously, you are just an idiot with nothing substantive to add.
Also, don’t apply your Canaanite god’s limitations to Allah (swt). Allah does not rest, just as He does not have “regrets”. Your Canaanite god needed to rest and also regretted doing things in the past.
And why can’t a law that “sanctifies” not also be meant to punish? What is the purpose of punishments, stupid? They serve as expiation for the sin committed! Duh!
LikeLike
“Your own Bible says that God will punish successive generations for the sins of their ancestors, moron!”
I reply, Not perpetually and upon all as in Islam’s treatment of the Jews. Biblical judgement always has restoration and reconciliation in view. The sins of the fathers who hate God are visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation but not forever and indiscriminately upon all as Allah upon the Jews, as described in the Koran.
King James Bible
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Faiz said “And why can’t a law that “sanctifies” not also be meant to punish? What is the purpose of punishments, stupid? They serve as expiation for the sin committed! Duh!”
I reply:
Blah, blah, blah. Once again, no scriptural support. only Faiz’s own opinions.
Can you provide an example of how this works from the bible?
LikeLike
Funny forgotten original sin
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madman, please check yourself into an asylum. Your psychosis keeps getting worse.
Think carefully, stupid. You believe in original sin, as Burhanuddin pointed out! Also, the Israelites tended to sin and disobey God quite often. And sometimes, the punishment that was sent upon them clearly lasted a lot longer than 3 or 4 generations. Take the exile after the Romans conquered Jerusalem. The Jews remained in exile for more than 500 years. Take a guess who let them back in? Come on, I know you know!
I am not arguing from the basis of the Bible, stupid. What do I care what your book says? I am asking you to back your idiotic statements with evidence, not your own opinions. Why are you speaking for your god?
LikeLike
““For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their wilful disobedience: for We are true (in Our ordinances)” (6:146).”
Why is this a punishment? For what sins? Didn’t the writer of the Koran understand that the law was given at Sinai before the nation had committed any sins?
LikeLike
LOL, you moron! When Moses was at Sinai, the Israelites were busy worshiping the golden calf! Are you born this stupid or did it take practice?
LikeLike
LOL, you moron! After the law was already given. Were you born this stupid?
LikeLike
LOL, you moron! Moses was still at the mountain when the Israelites worshiped the calf in his absence! I guess you were born this stupid!
LikeLike
The sabbath law was given before the people worshipped the golden calf. That debunks the idea that it was a “punishment” law. The laws of clean and unclean later.
LikeLike
Stupid, stupid, stupid. We were talking about the prohibition mentioned in Surah 6:146, dummy!
LikeLike
““For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their wilful disobedience: for We are true (in Our ordinances)” (6:146).”
It is not a punishment in it’s biblical form at all.
LikeLike
No one cares.
LikeLike
That’s just silly and desperate.
LikeLike
Don’t talk about yourself that way!
LikeLike
“Also, don’t apply your Canaanite god’s limitations to Allah (swt). Allah does not rest, just as He does not have “regrets”. Your Canaanite god needed to rest and also regretted doing things in the past.”
It’s called anthropomorphism.
Islam has them too. I guess you worship a canaanite deity as well!!
Translation of Al-Qur’an 055:027:
“And the Face of your Lord full of Majesty and Honour will abide forever.”
Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 503:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
When this Verse:–‘Say (O Muhammad!): He has Power to send torments on you from above,’ (6.65) was revealed; The Prophet said, “I take refuge with Your Face.” Allah revealed:– ‘..or from underneath your feet.’ (6.65) The Prophet then said, “I seek refuge with Your Face!” Then Allah revealed:–‘…or confuse you in party-strife.’ (6.65) Oh that, the Prophet said, “This is easier.”
LikeLike
ROTFL!! Do you delight in embarrassing yourself? Your Bible says that God has “regrets”. That is not the same as saying He has a “face”. Muslims believe He has a “face”, but we don’t extrapolate on what that means. And we definitely do not say that it is a “face” like a human face. The same cannot be done with your god’s “resting” and “regrets”. Are you saying he “rests” differently from humans? Your Bible even says that he was “refreshed” after he rested! What kind of god is that?
LikeLike
Google what the word athropomorphism means. It will answer each of those questions.
As usual, you allow one thing for Islam but not for anyone else. Inconsistent and hypocritical. Stop bringing shame to Islam.
LikeLike
Oh Cerbie, when will you stop being an idiot?
As I said, things like Allah’s “Face” are not like human faces. We don’t know what it means. We just believe that He has a “Face”. In contrast, your Bible says that God “rested”. How did he rest? More importantly, WHY did he rest? He’s supposed to be the supreme being! He doesn’t need to rest! Nor does He have “regrets” because that implies that He didn’t know something would happen beforehand.
“It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.”
“The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.”
“Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.”
I ask again: what kind of god is that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“ In contrast, your Bible says that God “rested”“
Yes, and as I said it’s an anthropomorphism. If you an ounce of decent you’d open a commentary and take a read.
Instead, you allow for figurative anthropomorphisms in the Koran but insist on literalism for the bible.
“And we definitely do not say that it is a “face” like a human face.”
This is dumb. You are basically making the Koran meaningless. If the face and hands of Allah are unlike like anything we know, then they aren’t a face or hand. You are basically saying Allah has a fhsjdjridkdnrkdi <——— the reason words have meaning is because they have a referent
LikeLike
You truly are a magnificent moron!
Try to think carefully, stupid. Throw out all your a priori assumptions and what you have read in biased commentaries. Consider the fact that many of your god’s characteristics are borrowed from Canaanite mythology, it is not surprising why the Bible says that your god “rested”. Here is a good commentary for you. Jonathan Burnside states in his book “God, Justice, and Society: Aspects of Law and Legality in the Bible”:
“This rest is presented as the climax of the story of universal creation (Genesis 2:2-3) where God is shown to triumph over the forces of chaos. “Victory in battle” followed by “rest” is a common motif in ancient Near Eastern (ANE) stories. Canaanite mythology describes the defeat of the sea god Yamm by the storm god Baal, who thereupon constructs a “temple” in which to rest. As a result, the commandments to keep Shabbat (Sabbath) invite and permit Israel to imitate God’s activity in creation” (p. 71).
See? This is more than just mere “anthropomorphism”. It’s simply repackaged paganism.
Your denial is your problem. If you had an ounce of reason, you would admit the facts instead of engaging in pathetic gymnastics.
LikeLike
“Verily in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest! ”
Tell me little masjidian, when the Koran says that hearts find rest, is the Koran teaching us that the heart actually stops working? Does it stop pumPaulus ng blood and upholding the body? Is the heart wearied and tired by remembering Allah?
Hmm, but god forbid the bible uses the term in relation to God and the only masjidian logical outcome is literalism and paganism.
And that is exactly how simple it is to demolish your argument. You are more stupid and illogical than muhammad’s Camel urine drinking medicine!
LikeLike
ROTFL!! Awww, is the little man-worshiping dog getting upset?
I love seeing Gentile dogs get desperate and keep moving the goalpost every time they get refuted. As I showed, the idea of a resting god was a very common motif in Canaanite culture. The gods had to rest after performing some important act. There was no ambiguity here or metaphor. They literally “rested”. Your Bible makes it clear that it was not a metaphor like hearts “resting”. God “rested” so that he could be “refreshed”.
LikeLike
@Faiz,
“““For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their wilful disobedience: for We are true (in Our ordinances)” (6:146).””
No one eats fat by itself anyway. The big lumps of fat from the stomach were burnt on the altar.
The Sign of the Sabbath
(Numbers 15:32-36)
12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
But the children of Israel who kept the law were Muslims according to you guys. Moses was also a Muslim according to your belief. They had to keep the sabbath for ever, as Muslims, because of creation.
So how can Mohammed abrogate the sabbath?
Why was the Sabbath difficult as you claim? This is just a made up falsehood to justify getting rid of it.
LikeLike
“No one eats fat by itself anyway. The big lumps of fat from the stomach were burnt on the altar.”
Oy vei! What difference does it make? You can still eat the fat with the meat.
“But the children of Israel who kept the law were Muslims according to you guys. Moses was also a Muslim according to your belief. They had to keep the sabbath for ever, as Muslims, because of creation.”
Eh, wrong! The Sabbath was for their people only. It was never meant to be eternal. All the prophets before Muhammad (pbuh) were sent to their own people. But when Muhammad (pbuh), he brought a universal religion. The essentials were the same: worship only the One God, make prayers, fast, give charity, etc. But individual laws that were given to previous nations were no longer applicable.
“So how can Mohammed abrogate the sabbath?”
Because it was only for the Israelites.
“Why was the Sabbath difficult as you claim? This is just a made up falsehood to justify getting rid of it.”
LOL, let’s see what your Bible says.
“Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.” – Hmm, that must have been tough during the winter!
And let’s not forget that your savior’s disciples were picking grains during the Sabbath because they were hungry. The Pharisees reacted with shock because the Bible very strictly warns against doing any work on the Sabbath. Jesus gave them some examples of why it is okay to break the law in extenuating circumstances, but the law specifically states that the Israelites were to prepare their food ahead of time before the Sabbath:
“Tomorrow is to be a day of sabbath rest, a holy sabbath to the Lord. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.”
So there was no excuse for doing any work, even to alleviated hunger.
LikeLike
“This is just a made up falsehood to justify getting rid of it.”
LOL, that’s rich! Since when do you Christians follow the Sabbath laws? Do you rest on the Sabbath, madman? Do you follow all the regulations of the Sabbath according to the Tanakh?
LikeLike
“This is just a made up falsehood to justify getting rid of it.”
Irony just died, got resurrected then died again.
Just how you can make a statement like that when your whole faith is based on Satan Paul renouncing the whole of the laws for exactly that reason (to get rid of it)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly!
LikeLike
LOL, let’s see what your Bible says.
“Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.” – Hmm, that must have been tough during the winter!
And let’s not forget that your savior’s disciples were picking grains during the Sabbath because they were hungry. The Pharisees reacted with shock because the Bible very strictly warns against doing any work on the Sabbath. Jesus gave them some examples of why it is okay to break the law in extenuating circumstances, but the law specifically states that the Israelites were to prepare their food ahead of time before the Sabbath:
I reply:
Fires once lit were kept burning in ancient times. So it was just a matter of having enough fuel on hand to keep the fire burning over the Sabbath. That’s not hardship at all. Lighting a fire from scratch was relatively hard work.
I wouldn’t classify picking grains as work. You are not collecting a surplus to your immediate needs.
The sabbath was one of the ten commandments. They cannot be abrogated in my view.
Another fact is that the decalogue was given on the first day by Moses to the people. Aaron and the elders went with Moses up the mountain on the next day according to the exodus account. So Aaron could not have constructed the calf on that day. The people made the golden calf after they had waited a number of days for Moses to return.
This all debunks your claim that the sabbath was a punishment law.
Faiz said “And why can’t a law that “sanctifies” not also be meant to punish? What is the purpose of punishments, stupid? They serve as expiation for the sin committed! Duh!”
I reply:
Blah, blah, blah. Once again, no scriptural support. only Faiz’s own opinions.
Can you provide an example of how this works from the bible?
LikeLike
There goes madman with his usual nonsense. Let’s see what he conjured up in his desperation after disappearing for a few days.
“Fires once lit were kept burning in ancient times. So it was just a matter of having enough fuel on hand to keep the fire burning over the Sabbath. That’s not hardship at all. Lighting a fire from scratch was relatively hard work.”
LOL, what kind of magical fires did they have in those days? What kind of endless “fuel”?
Idiot, unless people had an unending supply of firewood (which they didn’t as we will see), fires would go out. And we find that even going out and getting more wood was not allowed. So, if your fire happened to go out, and you didn’t have more firewood, you could not go and get more or start a new fire. Numbers 15 shows that it was a crime to gather wood on the Sabbath.
“I wouldn’t classify picking grains as work. You are not collecting a surplus to your immediate needs.”
There he goes again, making things up with no scriptural support. Work means expending energy. It is the opposite of rest, stupid. The reason did not matter. What mattered was doing any work.
“The sabbath was one of the ten commandments. They cannot be abrogated in my view.”
But your savior did abrogate it by allowing his disciples to gather grain on the Sabbath, which was forbidden! Stop making up your own rules, blasphemer!
“Another fact is that the decalogue was given on the first day by Moses to the people. Aaron and the elders went with Moses up the mountain on the next day according to the exodus account. So Aaron could not have constructed the calf on that day. The people made the golden calf after they had waited a number of days for Moses to return.
This all debunks your claim that the sabbath was a punishment law.”
LOL, here is another example of madman digging himself into a bigger hole!
The Biblical story proves itself to be completely nonsensical and contradictory. How could the Israelites have degenerated into idol worship after having just witnessed God’s power? How could Aaron (pbuh) so easily give in to the mob?! This is how it basically went:
Israelites: We’re tired of waiting for Moses. He has been gone too long. Aaron, why don’t you make us an idol of a calf to worship?
Aaron: …Okay, what the hell. Bring me the materials and I will do it.
It seems pretty silly, doesn’t it? It makes far more sense that the law was given after the Israelites worshiped the golden calf, which is why the Quran states that the episode of the golden calf occurred before Moses (pbuh) took 70 Israelites with him to the mountain.
So, unfortunately for you, your Bible doesn’t give us any reliable answers. Given the strict rules of the Sabbath, which Jesus (pbuh) obviously tried to relax, it seems pretty obvious that the Sabbath laws were meant to be a punishment for the Israelites’ rebelliousness and lack of faith.
“Blah, blah, blah. Once again, no scriptural support. only Faiz’s own opinions.
Can you provide an example of how this works from the bible?”
Once again, who cares what your Bible says? I don’t care what that contradictory book says.
But you believe in it, so you need to provide scriptural support for your laughable claims. It’s YOUR scripture, not mine, silly goose! So until you provide evidence from your contradictory book, your stupid claims are meaningless.
LikeLike
“Faiz said “And why can’t a law that “sanctifies” not also be meant to punish? What is the purpose of punishments, stupid? They serve as expiation for the sin committed! Duh!””
Can you give us an example from the bible? Can’t you be more specific or are you just evading the issue?
If you pay a speeding ticket are you sanctifying yourself?
“It seems pretty silly, doesn’t it? ”
“How could the Israelites have degenerated into idol worship after having just witnessed God’s power?”
They came from a polytheistic enviroment so where is your evidence to the contrary?
“which is why the Quran states that the episode of the golden calf occurred before Moses (pbuh) took 70 Israelites with him to the mountain.”
But Moses broke the tablets in response to this sin. This was after he went back down with the elders and returned alone to the summit. So the writer of the Quran should have done his homework better.
What is the Hajj a punishment for then according to your logic? Making People go all day without water for one month?
It would also be against the law to carry food and water. If Jesus was travelling by foot on the sabbath he would need food and water after a certain distance. It would not be against the law to pluck the heads of wheat or drink from a well on the journey.
LikeLike
LOL, another Christian clown tries to explain the contradictions in his Bible…and fails miserably!
We are not talking about man-made laws, silly goose. We are talking about God’s laws. The punishment for breaking certain laws serve as expiation for the sin.
The Israelites’ “polytheistic environment” does not explain why they would have degenerated into idolatry so quickly after having witnessed God’s power. It is ludicrous. What is even more ludicrous is how easily Aaron (pbuh), of all people. was so easily talked into constructing the idol! Imagine that! A prophet of God gets talked into committing such a horrible sin without much persuasion!
LOL, I don’t understand why you clowns make such stupid comments. The Quran is not reliant on the Bible. The Quran corrects the false and contradictory biblical stories and sets the record straight. What is clear from the Quran is that the elders went with Moses (pbuh) after the golden calf incident, not before. That makes far more sense.
ROTFL, Ignoramus is truly ignorant! since when are Hajis required to go without water all day during the Hajj? That’s during Ramadan, stupid! But yes, fasting serves as an expiation for your sins, and also yields great rewards. So it is a blessing.
It was prohibited to do any work on the Sabbath, even gathering firewood. The law was very strict. The Israelites were supposed to prepare ahead of time, as I already showed. Thus, the disciples were violating the Sabbath laws.
LikeLike
“The punishment for breaking certain laws serve as expiation for the sin.”
Which law? You still refuse to give an example or cite a proof text from the bible. Why are you running scared all the time?
LikeLike
LOL, you are such an idiot! Why can’t you get this through your pagan, trinitarian head? I AM NOT USING THE BIBLE! I COULD CARE LESS WHAT YOUR CONTRADICTORY BOOK SAYS. I AM REFERRING TO WHAT THE QURAN AND SUNNAH SAY. Get it now, stupid?
LikeLike
Why does this hold only for certain laws and not all laws?
Why do you use the word expiation instead of restitution?
LikeLike
Oy vei, you trinitarians are a dense bunch. You seem to think that all laws are CRIMINAL laws. But not every law has to do with criminal acts and punishments. For example, the laws of inheritance have nothing to do with criminal acts. Rather, these laws set the rules for dispersing one’s inheritance among one’s family members. It’s not that difficult to understand. Just take you head out of your rear-end and start thinking beyond your contradictory Bible.
LikeLike
“LOL, you are such an idiot! Why can’t you get this through your pagan, trinitarian head? I AM NOT USING THE BIBLE! I COULD CARE LESS WHAT YOUR CONTRADICTORY BOOK SAYS. I AM REFERRING TO WHAT THE QURAN AND SUNNAH SAY. Get it now, stupid?”
Which law(s) in particular are you talking about scarebaby?
LikeLike
LOL, has reading the Bible and being a Christian messed up your brain that much, moron? What have we been talking about all this time? Do you have the memory of a goldfish? The Quran says that the Sabbath law and certain dietary laws were imposed upon the Israelites as a punishment?
Madman, for the love of God, just commit yourself to an asylum already. You are embarrassing your religion and yourself!
LikeLike
““The punishment for breaking certain laws serve as expiation for the sin.”
““Faiz said “And why can’t a law that “sanctifies” not also be meant to punish? What is the purpose of punishments, stupid? They serve as expiation for the sin committed! Duh!””
Just take any law you want from anywhere you want and tell me what the heck you are talking about please.
LikeLike
Awww, poor madman, with his goldfish-level memory. How embarrassing! Alas, that’s the effect that Christianity has on people. It produces dummies.
LikeLike
Only Islam is capable of such an evil blasphemy to make the Sabbath a curse.
LikeLike
Only Christianity is capable of producing such idiots as madman.
Resting on the Sabbath from sunset to sunset, and not allowing any work to be done (even to light a fire) is a difficult rule to follow. So severe was the sin of breaking the Sabbath, that it was punished with death. With the coming of Islam, this rule was relaxed. You must still perform Friday prayers in a masjid, but once you are done, you can go about your daily business. Thank God for Islam!
LikeLike
Ceasing from work is not difficult for anyone.
It was also easy to avoid having to light a fire on the sabbath.
On the other hand it was not unlawful to throw some wood on an already burning fire.
So nobody had to fear the cold in winter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFhXfmjwrUk
Jesus and the disciples were walking on the sabbath in the service of the kingdom so it wouldn’t be against the law to pluck the corn on the way or take take water from a well. They sacralized their labour.
The priests also had to work on the sabbath to offer the daily sacrifices. Were they breaking the sabbath?
If some work was required to keep the day holy, and the sustenance of human life is necessary to this end, then this was not unlawful.
As Jesus said, the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.
LikeLike
LOL, more of madman’s own opinions and nothing from scripture to support it! Is this the best you could do in the several days you disappeared, desperately seeking an answer?
Obviously, it was difficult for some people, which is why it was punishable by death. Clearly, people did find it difficult, hence why the man in Numbers was picking up firewood. Willful disobedience of God’s laws brought more difficult laws as a punishment.
The law was specific, stupid. There were certain things you could or could not do. Temple sacrifices were not included in the prohibition.
The irony of this is that when the Christians came along, all of a sudden, the “holiness” of the Sabbath no longer mattered. Christians never kept the Sabbath like the Jews did. It seems the Sabbath also cause “enmity” between Jews and Gentiles!
By the way madman, I forgot to ask you again about menstruation. I asked you once before a while ago and you ran away. Since you obviously believe that most of the Mosaic law still applies to Christians, what about the law of menstruation? Are Christian husbands prohibited from having sexual intercourse with their wives? And must the wives be separated for 7 days as the Tanakh states?
LikeLike
One man from the whole nation broke the sabbath.
Faiz concludes from this that that sabbath law was hard to keep.
LOL
LikeLike
LOL, the moron madman thinks that the Bible has to record EVERY instance of Sabbath-breaking! ROFTL!!!
Still waiting for an answer on menstruation. Why are you guys so afraid of this subject? A little shy, are we?
LikeLike
Still only one infringement on that day out of the whole nation. Which fact is strongly in favour of an easy to obey Sabbath.
Still waiting for some hard evidence of a hard to keep Sabbath law. I won’t hold my breath.
Is a Muslim unclean through contact with the dead, or a human bone or a grave?
LikeLike
LOL, madman the dope still hasn’t realized that…(drum roll)…Christians DON’T keep the Sabbath! Ding, ding, ding! Why is that? Why weren’t Gentile converts required to keep the Sabbath, you fool? Do you keep the Sabbath? I would love to hear your Sabbath routine. 😉
As I said, there is no reason why every single case of a Sabbath breaker has to be recorded, stupid. But just think about it. A man gets stoned to death for picking up some sticks! That’s pretty harsh!
Muslims are not required to follow the strict Jewish law regarding dead bodies. All one has to do is to take a bath after washing a dead body. Merely touching a dead body does not require a bath.
LikeLike
Hi QB, can you please give me your email if you don’t mind…i’ve got something to ask you…
LikeLike
Bro, you can contact me through my blog. I don’t want to give out my email and get spammed.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/contact/
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Thanks mate…
LikeLike
“As I said, there is no reason why every single case of a Sabbath breaker has to be recorded, stupid. ”
To prove that the Sabbath law was a hard law to keep it would have to record a lot more than one case out of the whole nation on one day, stupid.
LikeLike
LOL, no moron. To prove that the Sabbath law was a hard law to keep, all one has to do is show the Christian attitude towards it. Since when do Christians keep the Sabbath law, stupid?
Poor madman has once again entered into his “ignore all questions” mode. Why don’t you answer my questions?
1. Are Christian husbands prohibited from having sexual intercourse with their wives? And must the wives be separated for 7 days as the Tanakh states?
2. Why weren’t Gentile converts required to keep the Sabbath, you fool? Do you keep the Sabbath? I would love to hear your Sabbath routine.
LikeLike
Jews go in to the synagogue. Christians go in to the church on their sabbath day. Where is the fundamental difference? They both have a day of rest for worship and contemplation of God. Only Islam can be so evil as to make a curse out of this practice.
The sabbath was named as such in the commandment which is evidence that is was already being practiced because the people were already familiar with the concept.
Faiz : “1. Are Christian husbands prohibited from having sexual intercourse with their wives? And must the wives be separated for 7 days as the Tanakh states?”
LOL
The clean and unclean laws were only for the time of the temple. Exception being the animals which were offered straight after the Fall as burnt offerings.
LikeLike
LOL, this is the best you could do after disappearing for so long? This is all you could find?
There is a HUGE difference is the way Jews and Christians treat the Sabbath. Since when do Christians stop working? Only a moron like you can be so obtuse as to not see the difference! That is the evil fruit of Christianity. It turns people into buffoons!
So why were Christians so quick to ditch the difficult parts of the Sabbath? It seems you people like to pay lip-service only. It’s like having your cake and eating it too.
“LOL
The clean and unclean laws were only for the time of the temple. Exception being the animals which were offered straight after the Fall as burnt offerings.”
LOL, you better go back and do some more frantic research to answer the question. Obviously, the last few weeks of searching did not get you the right answers!
Where is it stated in your Bible that “clean and unclean laws” were for the time of the temple. First of all, according to Ezekiel, the temple is supposed to be rebuilt and all the laws to be reinstated. This falsifies Christianity from the start.
Second, why would Christians be allowed to defile themselves with menstrual blood while Jews were not? What kind of sick religion do you follow?
Your answers showcase the central hypocrisy of Christianity. You pick and choose based on whim what laws to follow and what laws to ignore. Something that is “unclean” doesn’t suddenly become “clean”. In any case, the NT does not say that the laws concerning menstruation no longer apply. It only says that the DIETARY laws no longer apply. But even then, BLOOD was still forbidden!
“As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality” (Acts 21:25).
LOL, poor madman gets exposed again for being a moron!
So if consuming blood is still forbidden, then what about touching MENSTRUAL blood? You have been badly refuted, madman. Try again at answering the question! See you in a couple of weeks, yes? 😉
LikeLike
“Since when do Christians stop working? Only a moron like you can be so obtuse as to not see the difference! That is the evil fruit of Christianity. It turns people into buffoons!”
Of course they stop working on the Sabbath. Which Christians work on the Sabbath?
Didn’t Christ rest from his works on the day of his resurrection? Having created a new creation.
Faiz said: “Where is it stated in your Bible that “clean and unclean laws” were for the time of the temple. First of all, according to Ezekiel, the temple is supposed to be rebuilt and all the laws to be reinstated. This falsifies Christianity from the start.”
The temple was rebuilt but not Ezekiel’s temple. It never will be. God will never build a temple made from bricks and mortar again. It is evident that Ezekiels temple is symbolical because of the descriptions of water flowing out of it.
You lean towards literalism too much when you are interpreting prophecy. You don’t allow for symbolism because you are agenda driven.
King James Bible
Rev 21 v 22: And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Faiz “Where is it stated in your Bible that “clean and unclean laws” were for the time of the temple.”
Faiz “Second, why would Christians be allowed to defile themselves with menstrual blood while Jews were not? What kind of sick religion do you follow?”
The things that made the Jews unclean were symbolic of sin to show that man had to purify himself to approach a holy God and he had to separate himself from sin to live a holy life. You are blinded by your literalism which comes from the pagan superstition that physical contact defiles because of the nature of the thing itself, with which one comes into contact with, and not the thing that it symbolizes. This was just a temporary state of affairs which Islam perpetuates because of it’s supremacy value.
““As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality” (Acts 21:25).”
This is just the law of not causing the weaker brother, in this case the Jews, to be offended which was only temporarily of necessity because of the temple rites to which the Gentiles were not subject.
The Jews did not know what liberty they had until the NT was completed. God allowed a period of transition under which the Jews lived under both covenants. Gentile Christians had to be sensitive to the Jews living under this tension between the old and the new. Progressive revelation rears its ugly head once again I fear. The needles stuck for you guys.
Menstrual blood seems to be an irrelevance with which you are obsessed!
LikeLike
Let’s see what madman managed to scrounge in his desperation…
“Of course they stop working on the Sabbath. Which Christians work on the Sabbath?”
LOL, how about virtually all of them from the very earliest times? Here is what Tertullian said about observing the sabbath:
“It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary” (http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/003/0030185.htm).
Zing!!
“Didn’t Christ rest from his works on the day of his resurrection? Having created a new creation.”
LOL, this just shows how confused and contradictory your Bible really is!
“The temple was rebuilt but not Ezekiel’s temple. It never will be. God will never build a temple made from bricks and mortar again. It is evident that Ezekiels temple is symbolical because of the descriptions of water flowing out of it.”
Hahahaha, you moron! I already schooled you on this months ago and you ran away. There is nothing “symbolic” about Ezekiel’s temple, you lying demon! The flowing waters are also literal descriptions. Ezekiel talks about fishermen catching plentiful fish. It’s a very detailed description of the rebuilding of the temple and the observances of all festivals and laws. It even reestablished the law which forbid foreigners from entering the temple grounds!
Zing!!
“You lean towards literalism too much when you are interpreting prophecy. You don’t allow for symbolism because you are agenda driven.”
Aww, you’re breaking my heart!
You lean towards conservatism too much when you are interpreting prophecy. You don’t allow for literalism because you are agenda driven.
Zing!!
“The things that made the Jews unclean were symbolic of sin to show that man had to purify himself to approach a holy God and he had to separate himself from sin to live a holy life. You are blinded by your literalism which comes from the pagan superstition that physical contact defiles because of the nature of the thing itself, with which one comes into contact with, and not the thing that it symbolizes. This was just a temporary state of affairs which Islam perpetuates because of it’s supremacy value.”
Yaaaawn…oh sorry I got sleepy from all the repeated Christian BS.
Is this the best you can do? I demolished your hypocritical cherry-picking of the Jewish law and exposed your fraudulent piety. You are a perfect example of a brainwashed hypocrite.
“This is just the law of not causing the weaker brother, in this case the Jews, to be offended which was only temporarily of necessity because of the temple rites to which the Gentiles were not subject.”
LOL, here we go again. A modern Christian is reinterpreting the commands of the apostles because they are too inconvenient for him to follow. Christian hypocrisy is exposed yet again.
Zing!!
Where is it stated that this was “temporary”, you dufus? Are you saying that Christians are allowed to eat food sacrificed to idols? Or to engage in sexual immorality? Let’s read what the apostles said once again:
“As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
Are you picking and choosing what parts to follow, yet again? You just can’t escape the temptation, can you? What would Jesus (pbuh) say in this case, I wonder? Oh yeah, I know:
“Get behind me Satan!”
Poor madman…you’re nothing but Satan’s lapdog. Repent before it is too late.
LikeLike
Oops, forgot to respond to the last parts of madman’s train-wreck response:
“The Jews did not know what liberty they had until the NT was completed. God allowed a period of transition under which the Jews lived under both covenants. Gentile Christians had to be sensitive to the Jews living under this tension between the old and the new. Progressive revelation rears its ugly head once again I fear. The needles stuck for you guys.”
ROTFL!!! Oh, this is too funny! Madman wants the Jews to have liberty! But the Jews would feel that madman is too liberal and a blasphemer!
The Tanakh stated that the laws of Moses were for all time. This directly contradicts your asinine claim and also completely demolishes your religion. The Tanakh does not agree with the NT. Thus, Christianity is falsified.
Zing!!
The Jewish law was very strict in terms of menstruation. Husband and wife could not even touch each other during the wife’s menstrual period. But along comes the Christians and say that they don’t have to follow this law, even though there is NOTHING in the NT that says so. There is no “progressive revelation” about this! Show me where your NT says that the laws of menstruation no longer apply!
“Menstrual blood seems to be an irrelevance with which you are obsessed!”
Hahahaha, running away again, huh? You got badly humiliated, so now you are trying to push this issue to the side because it is “irrelevant”. But too bad for you. It is actually a very relevant issue and it concerns every Christian. You have done a poor job of explaining why the law no longer applies. You have provided no proof from your Bible, only your own pathetic opinions. Show me where it is stated that menstrual blood no longer defiles a person. I already showed you that consuming the blood from animals is still forbidden. You tried to dance your way around that too, only to be exposed as a liar and hypocrite. So if consuming animal blood is still forbidden, then why would touching menstrual blood (which is blood mixed with parts of a woman’s uterus) also not be forbidden? You are sick, sick person, madman!
LikeLike
Faiz ” It’s a very detailed description of the rebuilding of the temple and the observances of all festivals and laws. It even reestablished the law which forbid foreigners from entering the temple grounds!”
The temple was rebuilt by Herod. So what. Maybe he should have followed Ezekiels instructions more closely. Why should that bother me?
Faiz “Where is it stated that this was “temporary”, you dufus? Are you saying that Christians are allowed to eat food sacrificed to idols? Or to engage in sexual immorality?”
The relation of the Gentiles to the law had to be clarified by further revelation. In the meantime they were enjoined not to do anything that their Jewish brothers would find offensive.
The first priority was to bring them in to a saving relationship to God through the preaching of the death and resurrection of Christ. The law was not instrumental in this but the gospel was.
More light was shed on the ethical will of God as the NT was being compiled. This confirmed the ethical teachings of the law of Moses and Jesus. James himself in his epistle confirms this.
So actually it was permissible for Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols, blood or meat from a strangled animal, but they abstained from doing so because of the law of the weaker brother.
Faiz “The Tanakh stated that the laws of Moses were for all time. This directly contradicts your asinine claim and also completely demolishes your religion. The Tanakh does not agree with the NT. Thus, Christianity is falsified.”
I don’t see any evidence for this assertion. Care to try?
LikeLike
“The temple was rebuilt by Herod. So what. Maybe he should have followed Ezekiels instructions more closely. Why should that bother me?”
LOL, you are such an idiot! Ezekiel speaks of the rebuilding of the temple, after which it would never be destroyed again. Maybe you should read it again. Were you born this dense or did it take a lifetime of practice?
“The relation of the Gentiles to the law had to be clarified by further revelation. In the meantime they were enjoined not to do anything that their Jewish brothers would find offensive.
The first priority was to bring them in to a saving relationship to God through the preaching of the death and resurrection of Christ. The law was not instrumental in this but the gospel was.
More light was shed on the ethical will of God as the NT was being compiled. This confirmed the ethical teachings of the law of Moses and Jesus. James himself in his epistle confirms this.”
Yaaaawn…oh sorry, I got sleepy again from your repeated BS. What “further revelation” are you talking about? Why don’t you stop stalling and answer the question? Where is it stated that the rule not to eat food sacrificed to idols or blood and not to commit sexual immorality was “temporary”?
“So actually it was permissible for Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols, blood or meat from a strangled animal, but they abstained from doing so because of the law of the weaker brother.”
OMG!! Did I just read that right? Are you sure you are a Christian? Hmm, let’s see what the last book in your Bible says:
“Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols” (Revelation, 2:20).
Zing! Madman, you are a heretic!
“I don’t see any evidence for this assertion. Care to try?”
Of course, my dear. Ready to get embarrassed again? Let’s start with Ezekiel:
“‘My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.” (Ezekiel 37)
Deuteronomy also clearly says that whatever was revealed to the Israelites was supposed to last forever:
“The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.” (Deut. 29:29)
Now answer my questions, you lying demon. You can run, but you can’t hide.
1. Show me where it is stated that menstrual blood no longer defiles a person.
2. Tertullian said that the sabbath observance was temporary. Why didn’t the early Christians keep the sabbath?
LikeLike
There is no actual command in the text to build the temple that is in Ezekiels vision. I don’t believe in a literal fulfilment. The vision is symbolic of the ideal end time worship communicated in a temple setting.
The Gentiles were not under the Mosaic covenant so they were not obliged to keep the laws given at Sinai. The New Testament is the binding revelation from God to the people of God under the new covenant and takes precedence over the OT. The laws of the Mosaic Covenant were adopted and continued under the New Covenant to the extent that the NT regulates this adoption under it’s direction.The arrangement with the Jewish believers was an ad hoc arrangement between the Gentiles and Jews who still had not completely come in to their liberty. They were still living in bondage to the law because of their Jewish identity. The temple was actually dispensed with by God but as long as it was standing the Jews as a whole could not renounce it. This was too much pressure on the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Therefore this arrangement could not be binding for ever on the Gentiles. Only until the Jews made a full transition in to the church.
If the text “eating meat offered to idols” means joining in that worship then of course that would be idolatry. If it just means buying that meat in the marketplace then it would be ok to eat in that context. I don’t believe that Jezebel is a real person as that obviously could not be possible being an historical person from the OT. Again there is symbolism at work.
LikeLike
“There is no actual command in the text to build the temple that is in Ezekiels vision. I don’t believe in a literal fulfilment. The vision is symbolic of the ideal end time worship communicated in a temple setting.”
I could care less what you “believe”, you idiot. The text is clear that it is referring to a literal fulfillment. You can be in denial all you want, but your religion has been debunked. Deuteronomy, Ezekiel and the rest of the books of the Tanakh all prove you wrong.
“The Gentiles were not under the Mosaic covenant so they were not obliged to keep the laws given at Sinai. The New Testament is the binding revelation from God to the people of God under the new covenant and takes precedence over the OT. The laws of the Mosaic Covenant were adopted and continued under the New Covenant to the extent that the NT regulates this adoption under it’s direction.The arrangement with the Jewish believers was an ad hoc arrangement between the Gentiles and Jews who still had not completely come in to their liberty. They were still living in bondage to the law because of their Jewish identity. The temple was actually dispensed with by God but as long as it was standing the Jews as a whole could not renounce it. This was too much pressure on the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Therefore this arrangement could not be binding for ever on the Gentiles. Only until the Jews made a full transition in to the church.”
Yaaaaawn, I’m getting bored again by your repeated senseless babbling.
The Tanakh says that God’s law will last forever. That debunks your religion. All of the laws were supposed to last forever: the Sabbath, the dietary laws, the temple sacrifice, etc. Even keeping foreigners out of the temple was supposed to be forever! That by itself debunks your religion! The Gentiles were not welcome in God’s temple! Get over it.
“If the text “eating meat offered to idols” means joining in that worship then of course that would be idolatry. If it just means buying that meat in the marketplace then it would be ok to eat in that context. I don’t believe that Jezebel is a real person as that obviously could not be possible being an historical person from the OT. Again there is symbolism at work.”
LOL, you are such a good patsy of the false apostle Paul!
Why is it okay to buy meat that you know has been sacrificed to an idol? How is that different from taking part in the worship of an idol? You are supporting the act of sacrificing to an idol by buying and consuming that meat! Thus, you are just as culpable as the idol worshiper! So now we know the truth: You are an idolater, madman!
Now answer my questions, you lying demon. You can run, but you can’t hide.
1. Show me where it is stated that menstrual blood no longer defiles a person.
2. Tertullian said that the sabbath observance was temporary. Why didn’t the early Christians keep the sabbath?
LikeLike
The temple in Ezekiel is symbolical because of the water flooding and flowing from the altar. There is no law that says it must be interpreted literally.
The Gentiles didn’t have to keep the dietary laws laid down by James. They did so to make it possible to have fellowship with the Jews. Otherwise the Jews would have considered them to be unclean.
Why should the fact that mumbo jumbo has been said over an animal stop me from eating it?
If that was the case halal meat would be forbidden to me also.
We don’t have a mandate to discourage pagan idolatry except by the gospel and our lifestyle. Mohamed had other methods at his disposal. They are well known to anyone who has studied Islam.
The early, and present, christians keep a new form of the sabbath.
LikeLike
“The temple in Ezekiel is symbolical because of the water flooding and flowing from the altar. There is no law that says it must be interpreted literally.”
LOL, you are nothing more than a broken record! How many times do I have to embarrass you on this matter? There is no symbolism, stupid! Ezekiel gives a DETAILED description of how the temple will be rebuilt, how the sacrifices will restart, and how the Israelites will follow all of the laws (including the law that bans foreigners from entering the temple). The miraculous waters are also described as providing plentiful bounties for fishermen. It is all quite LITERAL, no matter what an idiot like you wants to say!
“The Gentiles didn’t have to keep the dietary laws laid down by James. They did so to make it possible to have fellowship with the Jews. Otherwise the Jews would have considered them to be unclean.”
ROTFL!! Madman’s humiliation continues! James made it clear that this was the minimum that Gentiles had to do. Stop lying, you demon!
“As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” – Acts 21:25
ZING!!
“Why should the fact that mumbo jumbo has been said over an animal stop me from eating it?”
Because your god says it is an abomination! Because by buying that meat, you are perpetuating and supporting the “mumbo jumbo”! Ergo, you are a HERETIC!
“If that was the case halal meat would be forbidden to me also.”
Hahahaha, WRONG! Halal meat is not sacrificed to idols, you moron.
“We don’t have a mandate to discourage pagan idolatry except by the gospel and our lifestyle. Mohamed had other methods at his disposal. They are well known to anyone who has studied Islam.”
Hahahaha, so it’s okay to encourage pagan idolatry by buying meat sacrificed to idols! Keep it up madman! Every time you open your mouth, you give me gold nuggets to humiliate you with!
“The early, and present, christians keep a new form of the sabbath.”
Well, how convenient! Thank you for admitting that Christians, whether “early” or “present”, are just a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites who will get a nasty surprise on the Day of Judgment! Thank you for showing that Christianity is just a religion of talk, not action.
Now answer my questions, you lying demon. You can run, but you can’t hide.
1. Show me where it is stated that menstrual blood no longer defiles a person.
2. Tertullian said that the sabbath observance was temporary. Why didn’t the early Christians keep the sabbath?
LikeLike
Put that on your blog and smoke it 🙂
LikeLike
Oh don’t worry, I will! 😉
LikeLike
There you go snookums! Ask, and you shall receive!
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/madman-still-has-trouble-with-the-law-of-moses-this-is-getting-sad-now/
LikeLike
Muslims don’t circumcise their male infants on the 8th day you hypocrite Faiz.
LikeLike
LOL, but most of them do circumcise their males, you moron! Unlike you hypocrites, who pick and choose what is most convenient for you to follow. Thanks madman! You have proven over and over again that you follow a hypocritical religion which is full of talk and no action.
LikeLike
I’m sure you’ll like this law Faiz:
1 Chronicles 16
13 O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.
14 He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth.
15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
18 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;
LikeLike
Hahaha, nice try at changing the subject! You dummies do that whenever you are unable to answer questions.
I don’t believe in the Bible, stupid. You do. The Bible’s promises are YOUR problem, not mine! The Tanakh disproves Christianity, as I have shown numerous times already.
Now answer my questions, you lying demon. You can run, but you can’t hide.
1. Show me where it is stated that menstrual blood no longer defiles a person.
2. Tertullian said that the sabbath observance was temporary. Why didn’t the early Christians keep the sabbath?
LikeLike
Faiz said: “I don’t believe in the Bible, stupid. You do. The Bible’s promises are YOUR problem, not mine! The Tanakh disproves Christianity, as I have shown numerous times already. ”
lol, your prophet must have believed a lot that was in the bible because he copied swaths of it to make his book. The only new thing in Islam is Mohammed himself. Everything else is copied from Jews, pagans and Christians.
Jesus, James and Paul agree with each other and confirm the moral teaching of the OT.
Gentiles are indwelt by the Spirit of God without the need of the law which established an earthly priesthood, the temple and sacrificial rites. The laws of clean and unclean were only be applied in this context.
“As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”
This is the law of the weaker brother which is not mandatory but done so as not to offend. Of course fornication was always forbidden as both Jesus and Paul commanded:
Paul writes in 1 Thess 4:
3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
Muslims try and picture Christians as antinomian and lawless. There is no basis for this from the NT. Rather the jihadi becomes antimonian in relation to the infidel. Don’t you agree? This is a clever ruse.
The clean and unclean in Ezekiel’s vision of the temple are symbolic of believers and unbelievers in the time of the new covenant and in the final state.
Peter’s vision confirms that the laws of clean and unclean no longer apply.
The early christians did keep a form of the sabbath. They rested from their work and assembled together to worship and have fellowship with each other and with God. This is the ideal form of the Sabbath which existed before the law of Moses.
Please add this to your blog article. No editing please.
LikeLike
“lol, your prophet must have believed a lot that was in the bible because he copied swaths of it to make his book. The only new thing in Islam is Mohammed himself. Everything else is copied from Jews, pagans and Christians.”
LOL, trying again to change the subject? What does Islam have to do with the fact that your Bible doesn’t agree with itself? Why don’t you try to respond to the clear contradictions between the Tanakh and your pathetic “New Testament”?
Speaking of copying, why does your Bible copy from Canaanite paganism and refer to your god as an old man? Why does it borrow the myth of Leviathan from the Canaanites? See what changing the subject got you? You dug yourself into an even bigger hole! HAHAHAHAHA! Madman…such a loser!!!
“Jesus, James and Paul agree with each other and confirm the moral teaching of the OT.”
Oh please, stop making me laugh so much! Your fantasies don’t apply here. Anyone with an ounce of reason knows that there are numerous contradictions between Jesus and Paul.
“Gentiles are indwelt by the Spirit of God without the need of the law which established an earthly priesthood, the temple and sacrificial rites. The laws of clean and unclean were only be applied in this context.”
Blah, blah, blah. I have heard this meaningless fairy tale before. Your apostles clearly stated that Gentiles were to abstain from certain things. Therefore, your nonsense is refuted. Try again, loser.
“This is the law of the weaker brother which is not mandatory but done so as not to offend. Of course fornication was always forbidden as both Jesus and Paul commanded:”
LOL, picking and choosing again? This clearly has nothing to do with the “weaker brother” BS, because even in Revelation, the same law was repeated: abstain from food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality, or face judgement.
“Muslims try and picture Christians as antinomian and lawless. There is no basis for this from the NT. Rather the jihadi becomes antimonian in relation to the infidel. Don’t you agree? This is a clever ruse.”
ROFTL, again trying to distract from your failures? You have proven over and over again that you are a hypocrite. Your entire religion is built upon hypocrisy. You pick and choose what is most convenient. So yeah, you idiots are “lawless”. You make up your own rules because of the deception of your Satanic apostle Paul. How fitting that you will join him in hell on the Day of Judgment, unless of course if you repent.
“The clean and unclean in Ezekiel’s vision of the temple are symbolic of believers and unbelievers in the time of the new covenant and in the final state.”
Yaaaaawn, getting bored again from your BS. Your nonsense was apparently lost on the author of Ezekiel! He gave minute details about the temple, its rites and festivals and the following of the law TO THE LETTER. Why don’t you explain the “symbolism” of the following verse loser?
“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.” (Ezekiel 44:9)
LOL, what is this symbolizing? Were the Gentiles not allowed in your pathetic church???
“Peter’s vision confirms that the laws of clean and unclean no longer apply.”
ROFTL!! This was again lost on the author of Revelation! And James didn’t seem to be aware of this so-called “vision”!
You do realize, you lying demon, that your own Bible requires two witnesses for confirmation? Thus, Peter’s alleged “vision” violates your own Bible! He was the only one who had the vision, and no one else! LOL!
“But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” (Matthew 18:16)
“The early christians did keep a form of the sabbath. They rested from their work and assembled together to worship and have fellowship with each other and with God. This is the ideal form of the Sabbath which existed before the law of Moses.”
Hahahaha, oh you stupid, stupid man! You keep proving with your own words that you Christians are nothing but hypocrites! Where did God say to keep “a form of the sabbath”? The Tanakh is very clear on the “form”. You were to do no work, not even cooking. Christians were very quick to abandon this law. Tertullian felt that it was a “temporary” law.
You still haven’t told me your sabbath routine. Why do you keep running, madman?
“Please add this to your blog article. No editing please.”
You don’t have to keep asking snookums. I will be glad to humiliate you. And I don’t edit anything. Are you suggesting I edited your comments, loser? When will you stop lying, demon?
Now answer my questions, you lying demon. You can run, but you can’t hide.
1. Show me where it is stated that menstrual blood no longer defiles a person.
2. Tertullian said that the sabbath observance was temporary. Why didn’t the early Christians keep the sabbath?
LikeLike
“The laws of clean and unclean were only be applied in this context.”
Should be “The laws of clean and unclean were only applied in this context”
LikeLike
““But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’” (Matthew 18:16)”
So the context is conflict within the church fellowship, or some kind of moral dispute, in which some kind of wrongdoing is involved, not the creation of doctrine:
“A Brother who Sins
(Deuteronomy 19:15-21)
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
There is no level to which you won’t stoop in your desperation to discredit the plain truths revealed in the bible.
5I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: 6Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 7And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. 8But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. 9But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 10And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. 12And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting.
LikeLike
“So the context is conflict within the church fellowship, or some kind of moral dispute, in which some kind of wrongdoing is involved, not the creation of doctrine:”
LOL, you seriously are an idiot. Why don’t you do some better research?
The “two-witnesses” rule applies to all matters, not just “conflicts” or “moral disputes”. This is from your Bible:
“It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me” (John:8:17-18).
Here, Jesus is evoking the two-witnesses rule to establish his own trustworthiness. There is nothing here about “conflicts” or “moral disputes”. It is simply a matter of establishing whether a person is telling the truth or not. This concept is also evoked in Revelation 11:3.
Thus, Peter’s so-called “vision”, for which the ONLY source is a third-party which was not present when the vision occurred (namely Luke). You still have yet to provide an explanation for why this “vision” is supposed to change thousands of years of strict dietary laws. Notice that Peter even says that he has never eaten anything unclean. That means that when Jesus (pbuh) was still present, the disciples still followed the dietary laws! He never changed the law himself! What was he waiting for?
“There is no level to which you won’t stoop in your desperation to discredit the plain truths revealed in the bible.
5I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: 6Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 7And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. 8But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. 9But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 10And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. 12And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting.”
Oh brother! ROFTL!!!
So you quote Acts 11 in which Peter summarized his “visions”? What’s your point, stupid? There is no level to which you won’t stoop in your desperation to avoid the pain contradictions in your confused Bible.
Let’s see more contradictions, shall we? I will use your precious KJV:
Acts 10 – “Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.”
Acts 11 – “10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.
11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me.
12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house.”
So, notice how Acts 10 says that the men stayed at the gate, whereas in Acts 11, Peter claims they had already entered the house! Oh what a shock! Yet another contradiction in the Bible!
But that’s besides the point. The fact still remains that Peter’s “vision” violated the Biblical rule of “two witnesses” to decide the truth of every matter. You have yet to explain this. I can see you are getting desperate.
LikeLike
“because even in Revelation, the same law was repeated: abstain from food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality, or face judgement. ”
Revelation is a highly symbolic book so the passages referring to abstaining from food sacrificed to idols do not literally mean that. It is symobolic for a lapse into false doctrine.
The use of the word Jezebel is a proof of this.
Other examples from the letters to the churches, which is the context in which this referenence to food sacrificed to idols occurs:
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. 17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death;
The judgements are not literal judgements but symbolic. The same applies for the sins.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
The remedies here are also symbolic.
As usual Faiz you either twist or ignore the context.
Paul’s teaching is clear on this matter:
Food Sacrificed to Idols
(Ezekiel 14:1-11; Romans 14:13-23)
1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
LikeLike
“Revelation is a highly symbolic book so the passages referring to abstaining from food sacrificed to idols do not literally mean that. It is symobolic for a lapse into false doctrine.”
Oh how convenient! So now Revelation is “symbolic”, eh? You are such a liar, it’s not shocking any more.
If the author was talking simply about “a lapse into false doctrine”, then why not just say that?
“The use of the word Jezebel is a proof of this.”
Jezebel is a name, and it refers to a false teacher, in this case, a “false prophetess”. Whether this is a person or just a symbol for “false doctrine”, the fact remains that Jezebel is blamed for making the churches do evil things, SUCH AS EATING FOOD SACRIFICED TO IDOLS. This is a specific act that is condemned, along with fornication.
“The judgements are not literal judgements but symbolic. The same applies for the sins.”
WRONG! These are very real threats. It’s actually proof that the Christians believed the end was coming soon. Read my article on Revelation for more on this: https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-book-of-revelation/
“As usual Faiz you either twist or ignore the context.
Paul’s teaching is clear on this matter:”
Paul was a false apostle, as we have already seen. He knew that eating food sacrificed to idols was an evil act, but in the interest of gaining converts, he was willing to set aside any law he saw fit. He was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, who became all things to all people. That is enough to condemn him as a false teacher.
Not only that, but he seems to actually say that there are indeed many gods, even though Christians believe in only one:
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)”
This is again from your KJV. Paul seems to be affirming henotheism, instead of monotheism. You shot yourself in the foot again, madman!
LikeLike
The other possibility is that because fornication and the eating of meat offered to idols occurs together a full participation in the pagan ritual worship is in view here, not just the eating of the animal that was sacrificed.
If I go with this interpretation there is no contradiction between Paul and Revelation.
Sorry Faiz, but your attempt to drive a wedge between Paul and the rest of the NT has miserably failed once again.
LikeLike
LOL, madman keeps jumping from one possibility to another. Can’t make up your mind, eh? Is it “symbolic” or is it referring to literal acts?
Your pathetic interpretations are all a desperate attempt to save your false apostle Paul from being condemned as the liar that he was. He clearly contradicted the disciples, who prohibited the eating of food sacrificed to idols. Paul was only interested in gaining converts, by any means necessary. You are an anti-Christ just like he was. What lengths you go to to protect your idol, just like a good pagan!
LikeLike
since your god said that blood is an atonement and he never identified an animal, i guess a modern day pagan man worshiper like you would tell yhwh that PIGS blood and dogs blood can be atonement for sins.
Isaiah 66:16-18 New International Version (NIV)
16 For with fire and with his sword
the Lord will execute judgment on all people,
and many will be those slain by the Lord.
17 “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one who is among those who eat the flesh of pigs, rats and other unclean things—they will meet their end together with the one they follow,” declares the Lord.
18 “And I, because of what they have planned and done, am about to come[a] and gather the people of all nations and languages, and they will come and see my glory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So, notice how Acts 10 says that the men stayed at the gate, whereas in Acts 11, Peter claims they had already entered the house! Oh what a shock! Yet another contradiction in the Bible!”
Its not a contradiction because there were three visions over a period of time. Obviously during this time the men changed their location constantly as they were constantly on the move.
After the last occurence of the vision the men were already in the house.
LikeLike
There goes the desperation again. You are lying again, you demon. There was only one vision, but the dialogue between the being in the vision and Peter happened three times. Stop trying to peddle your lies here.
The vision was already over when the men came:
“While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate.”
Poor madman and his delusions…
LikeLike
This was done three times obviously refers to the whole procedure.
LikeLike
ROTFL, and you’re obviously a deluded moron. He didn’t have three visions. Get over it.
LikeLike