420 replies to this topic

[GT3BB]

Franklin_Turtle, on 28 March 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

Of course.  Got the passage and verse?  Don't want ya to squeak through the old new covenant loophole

Why not, two are from the OT?

With regard to Matthew...a more benign interpretation:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. Christ has to conquer a peace by overcoming the evil that is in the way of peace. Hence, to preach the gospel of purity and peace always arouses the opposition of the evil doer. Evil has to be put down before peace can prevail. Hence, while the great end that Christ proposes is peace, the immediate result of his coming, and of the preaching of the gospel, was opposition and bloodshed.

[espo35]

GT3BB, on 28 March 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

Why not, two are from the OT?

With regard to Matthew...a more benign interpretation:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. Christ has to conquer a peace by overcoming the evil that is in the way of peace. Hence, to preach the gospel of purity and peace always arouses the opposition of the evil doer. Evil has to be put down before peace can prevail. Hence, while the great end that Christ proposes is peace, the immediate result of his coming, and of the preaching of the gospel, was opposition and bloodshed.

He is referring to division amongst family; those seeking the kingdom will be outcast from friends and family.


Mosaic Law, while part of the "Old Testament" is not the entire "Old Testament", by the way.

[franklin_turtle]

GT3BB, on 28 March 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

Why not, two are from the OT?

With regard to Matthew...a more benign interpretation:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. Christ has to conquer a peace by overcoming the evil that is in the way of peace. Hence, to preach the gospel of purity and peace always arouses the opposition of the evil doer. Evil has to be put down before peace can prevail. Hence, while the great end that Christ proposes is peace, the immediate result of his coming, and of the preaching of the gospel, was opposition and bloodshed.

So we get to choose the interpretation that we like?  Don't leave the opening so wide.

[franklin_turtle]

espo35, on 28 March 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

He is referring to division amongst family; those seeking the kingdom will be outcast from friends and family.


Mosaic Law, while part of the "Old Testament" is not the entire "Old Testament", by the way.

True but it is the part that Paul had the most trouble with.

[espo35]

Franklin_Turtle, on 28 March 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

True but it is the part that Paul had the most trouble with.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Paul did say All scripture is inspired and useful for teaching and setting things straight (pp.).
Of course, in Pauls' day, scripture was ONLY the Hebrew Scripture, as the "New Testament" was not yet scripture.

[espo35]

Franklin_Turtle, on 28 March 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

So we get to choose the interpretation that we like?  Don't leave the opening so wide.

<< Matthew 10:33 >>

New International Version (©1984)
But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

[sharkfriend]

GT3BB, on 28 March 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

Why not, two are from the OT?

With regard to Matthew...a more benign interpretation:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. Christ has to conquer a peace by overcoming the evil that is in the way of peace. Hence, to preach the gospel of purity and peace always arouses the opposition of the evil doer. Evil has to be put down before peace can prevail. Hence, while the great end that Christ proposes is peace, the immediate result of his coming, and of the preaching of the gospel, was opposition and bloodshed.

Remember when I was remarking on interpretation vs literal translation...and you came down on the side of literal translation?
It's interesting how you suddenly are comfortable with the more benign translation when it can benefit your conversation...

[espo35]

sharkfriend, on 28 March 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

Remember when I was remarking on interpretation vs literal translation...and you came down on the side of literal translation?
It's interesting how you suddenly are comfortable with the more benign translation when it can benefit your conversation...

Context is everything.

http://bible.cc/matthew/10-33.htm

use the little arrows near the cited verse....

[Alobar]

espo35, on 28 March 2011 - 02:07 PM, said:

Context is everything.

http://bible.cc/matthew/10-33.htm

use the little arrows near the cited verse....

that isn't SF's point.


Of course... context IS everything.  Something GT will likely never understand.

[GT3BB]

Alobar, on 28 March 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

that isn't SF's point.


Of course... context IS everything.  Something GT will likely never understand.

Yea, and it's too bad the verses from the Koran are not so easily explained away by context.

[Alobar]

GT3BB, on 28 March 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

Yea, and it's too bad the verses from the Koran are not so easily explained away by context.

Pffft.... as if you could apply any context to the Quran...

[sharkfriend]

espo35, on 28 March 2011 - 02:07 PM, said:

Context is everything.

http://bible.cc/matthew/10-33.htm

use the little arrows near the cited verse....

Hahaha I am not talking about you and context, I am talking about GT's, understanding and context...

[franklin_turtle]

GT3BB, on 28 March 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

Yea, and it's too bad the verses from the Koran are not so easily explained away by context.

Try it.

[RedWingsRed]

Alobar, on 11 March 2011 - 07:14 AM, said:

The "war" is, has been, and will continue to be... a "civil war within Islam".

THAT is what we are seeing in Egypt, Libya, etc.

Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.

[RedWingsRed]

The Muslims like to say our Bible is "corrupt", when in reality, it's the Koran that is a corrupt version of the Bible. I think it's funny how the Dead sea scrolls (which are over 2000 years old) match what the Bible says almost word for word... That's all I have to say on the subject. I'm out.

[sharkfriend]

RedWingsRed, on 28 March 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

The Muslims like to say our Bible is "corrupt", when in reality, it's the Koran that is a corrupt version of the Bible. I think it's funny how the Dead sea scrolls (which are over 2000 years old) match what the Bible says almost word for word... That's all I have to say on the subject. I'm out.

Actually, I have never heard any muslim denigrate the bible, but it is this type of thinking which cause religious conflict instead of ecumenical resolution. There is more in common than not in all religions, it is the human interpretations which which have caused these conflicts.

[RedWingsRed]

sharkfriend, on 28 March 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

Actually, I have never heard any muslim denigrate the bible, but it is this type of thinking which cause religious conflict instead of ecumenical resolution. There is more in common than not in all religions, it is the human interpretations which which have caused these conflicts.

That's because you haven't had a Muslim try to convert you from Christianity to Islam, Use the Bible and the scriptures as your defense and that will be the 1st thing they use as an argument.... Ask any Muslim about the Bible and they'll tell you.

[GT3BB]

Alobar, on 28 March 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

Pffft.... as if you could apply any context to the Quran...

Neither I nor anyone else can...

Stepped into that one...LOL

[GT3BB]

RedWingsRed, on 28 March 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:

That's because you haven't had a Muslim try to convert you from Christianity to Islam, Use the Bible and the scriptures as your defense and that will be the 1st thing they use as an argument.... Ask any Muslim about the Bible and they'll tell you.

That's also because he doesn't understand Muslim history.

The Koran clearly has a simple three step plan to convert to Islam:

1. Convert.

2. Pay a ransom.

3. Die.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya(ransom) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..."  Prayer and charity are among the Five Pillars of Islam, as salat and zakat.  See below.

Qur'an (9:11) - (Continued from above) "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion"  This confirms that Muhammad is speaking of conversion to Islam.

Qur'an (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers."  The key phrase is to fight until "religion be only for Allah."

[espo35]

sharkfriend, on 28 March 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

Actually, I have never heard any muslim denigrate the bible, but it is this type of thinking which cause religious conflict instead of ecumenical resolution. There is more in common than not in all religions, it is the human interpretations which which have caused these conflicts.

They do pretty much agree.....up until the arrival of Jesus. Either you accept him as the Messiah (Christianity) or you don't (Muslims, Jews).