Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?

[Greatest I am]

The blind leading the blind. Both will fall into the pit. How can you be so blinkered into believing all that "Pagan Jesus" BS?
If history repeated itself and we had another person born of a virgin on the 25th Dec. who took up carpentry and later became a miracle worker, would you say that was all based on the life of Jesus? Do you think the same set of events couldn't repeat. There are 8 billion humans on the planet, surely chance is going let it happen again.
So even if you think the Jesus story had similarities to some earlier ones that doesn't mean Jesus wasn't true.

In my research Jesus was born in 17 BC and hence there is no contradiction in the Gospels at all. That gave Jesus the first 12 years of his life in Egypt to become educated in the Egyptian ways. He was very knowledgeable by the time he returned to Jerusalem. But because Herod's son ruled in Jerusalem he went down to Nazareth and lived there. He was about 48 years of age when he was crucified. That ties in accurately with what the ancient writers confirmed.
One of Jesus' disciples was his twin brother, and that is why they would wonder who was the twin of Jesus. Most thought Thomas was the twin so they called him Didymus, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didymus).
In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus tells him he isn't the twin of Jesus.

So I believe Jesus is a true story. But who today can accept that the Virgin Mary had Twins? It is all very well the disciples saying that Jesus had a twin, but only Jesus was taken to Egypt to escape Herod. So how do we explain what happened to the other baby?

Only a really big fool would think there are no contradictions in the bible.

Just on Jesus, there are many. Listen, learn.

[video=youtube;s5beZSE8gxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5beZSE8gxo[/video]

Regards
DL

 

[Robittybob1]

I do not have time to write that book and Jesus referred to the O T quite often. If the first covenant had been worthy then a new one would not have been required.

Further, God says he never changes his mind so you will have to find some other way of squirming away from your genocidal son murdering God.

Regards
DL

What is there no law written on your heart then? I sense a fighting spirit, but one that is hopelessly confused. Jesus lived under the old covenant, he had to do the things the Jews insisted of him (but he did breakaway from time to time picking corn on the Sabbath and healing the sick on the Sabbath. He showed there was no sin and no law against doing good and healing hunger on the Sabbath.
Now once he sealed the new covenant with his own blood from then it is a different story, and we are not bound by the old rules but the personalized law that God writes in our hearts and mind, and it is our own conscience that convicts us. We are suppose to become sensitive to the living spirit and grow daily.
Do you not operate like this, are you still stuck in the old Cro-magnon and Neanderthal ways?

 

[Robittybob1]

Only a really big fool would think there are no contradictions in the bible.

Just on Jesus, there are many. Listen, learn.

[video=youtube;s5beZSE8gxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5beZSE8gxo[/video]

Regards
DL

When you have a look at a masterpiece and when you get up close the brushstrokes don't look so perfect, but standing back you still get the wonderful big picture. Do you think any one single brush stroke would have spoiled the art? You can imagine a saboteur soon messing up the masterpiece and that is what you are trying to do.
Do you know what your fate will be? Willful damage must deserve punishment surely.

 

[billvon]

He showed there was no sin and no law against doing good and healing hunger on the Sabbath.
Now once he sealed the new covenant with his own blood from then it is a different story, and we are not bound by the old rules . . .

That's not what Jesus said.

Matthew 5:17-20:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Luke 16:17:
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail."

 

[Greatest I am]

Robi

Because the bible contradicts itself, I am willfully damaging it.

You are so like your God. You like to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

Regards
DL

 

[Robittybob1]

That's not what Jesus said.

Matthew 5:17-20:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Luke 16:17:
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail."

That is the question isn't it. When did Jesus know he had fulfilled the the Law? He couldn't presume that at that stage he had made the grade. He had a difficult battle ahead and was he going to be victorious? Ultimately yes but at the time who knows? So I can see why he didn't say, what will happen once he had conquered.
So are you one of these Christians stuck in the old testament unsure what rules are in or out?
Answer me this: Did Jesus fulfill the Law? If he did the previous law has been superseded in my opinion.

 

[Robittybob1]

Robi

Because the bible contradicts itself, I am willfully damaging it.

You are so like your God. You like to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

Regards
DL

I'll just repeat my previous remarks:
"When you have a look at a masterpiece and when you get up close the brushstrokes don't look so perfect, but standing back you still get the wonderful big picture. Do you think any one single brush stroke would have spoiled the art? You can imagine a saboteur soon messing up the masterpiece and that is what you are trying to do.
Do you know what your fate will be? Willful damage must deserve punishment surely."

You can't say just because the Master's brushwork had imperfections you are allowed to destroy the masterpiece!

 

[wegs]

I've come to learn it like this:

Jesus came to "fulfill" the old law...what does that mean? It means that the Jewish law wouldn't be abolished but rather Jesus was going to show what it truly meant to live holy lives. The Pharisees were often caught up in legalistic battles over the rules and regulations of their faith. Jesus in essence was saying..."rules are fine but they don't make one holy."

In other words, Jesus came to teach that a relationship with God is the key to holiness and happiness. That doesn't mean the rules go out the window, rather it means the rules won't grow you in holiness, if you are following them with no love in your heart.

On another note ...Jesus could have had a twin brother, as he refers to Thomas as such. But guess where that is written? It was part of the Gnostic writings. They just found remains of it in 1945! So, they existed but makes you wonder why that wasn't included in the Bible.

It would cause doubt over Mary being a virgin when she have birth to Jesus.

Things that make you go hmmm!

This doesn't cause me to think Jesus didn't exist. I question what possible motive did early church "fathers" have for omitting certain parts of "the story."

 

[Robittybob1]

I've come to learn it like this:

Jesus came to "fulfill" the old law...what does that mean? It means that the Jewish law wouldn't be abolished but rather Jesus was going to show what it truly meant to live holy lives. The Pharisees were often caught up in legalistic battles over the rules and regulations of their faith. Jesus in essence was saying..."rules are fine but they don't make one holy."

In other words, Jesus came to teach that a relationship with God is the key to holiness and happiness. That doesn't mean the rules go out the window, rather it means the rules won't grow you in holiness, if you are following them with no love in your heart.

On another note ...Jesus could have had a twin brother, as he refers to Thomas as such. But guess where that is written? It was part of the Gnostic writings. They just found remains of it in 1945! So, they existed but makes you wonder why that wasn't included in the Bible.

It would cause doubt over Mary being a virgin when she have birth to Jesus.

Things that make you go hmmm!

This doesn't cause me to think Jesus didn't exist. I question what possible motive did early church "fathers" have for omitting certain parts of "the story."

Thank you Wegs. It was NOT fully smudged out of the NT though.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19:25-27&version=KJV

John 19:25-27
King James Version (KJV)
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Now think about what just happened!

 

[billvon]

When did Jesus know he had fulfilled the the Law?

When he obeyed it; same way we do today.

So are you one of these Christians stuck in the old testament unsure what rules are in or out?

No, I think both are pretty full of mistakes. The above was just an example of Jesus saying, without equivocation, that not one tiny bit of the old law (i.e. the Old Testament) will be invalidated until earth and heaven pass away. In fact two different authors claimed that Jesus said that.

If you believe in the inerrancy of the New Testament, that means that the Old Testament must be valid too. If you think both might have errors/misstatements/translation mistakes/tampering then you can, of course, interpret it as you like . . .

Answer me this: Did Jesus fulfill the Law? If he did the previous law has been superseded in my opinion.

?? If you never murder anyone, does that mean that you have "fulfilled the law" and thus your kids don't have to follow laws against murder? He says quite clearly that if you break the least of the Old Testament laws you will be looked at quite unfavorably. Time limit - until the heavens and earth pass away.

 

[gmilam]

Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?

They do. Have you paid any attention to the abortion disputes in Texas?

 

[billvon]

It means that the Jewish law wouldn't be abolished but rather Jesus was going to show what it truly meant to live holy lives. The Pharisees were often caught up in legalistic battles over the rules and regulations of their faith. Jesus in essence was saying..."rules are fine but they don't make one holy."

I think the reason he said that was more pedestrian; he didn't want to get arrested (which would happen if you advocated disobeying the laws of the Roman Empire) or ostracized by the Jews (which would happen if you disregarded the laws of the Old Testament.) Of course that didn't work in the long run.

On another note ...Jesus could have had a twin brother, as he refers to Thomas as such. But guess where that is written? It was part of the Gnostic writings. They just found remains of it in 1945! So, they existed but makes you wonder why that wasn't included in the Bible.

It would cause doubt over Mary being a virgin when she have birth to Jesus.

Especially since the term used to describe her ("almah" in the earliest text we can find) was translated as "virgin" in the case of Mary, but as "young woman" when used elsewhere in the bible.

This doesn't cause me to think Jesus didn't exist. I question what possible motive did early church "fathers" have for omitting certain parts of "the story."

Agreed; I think they had a lot to do with it. The Gospels were very carefully vetted/tweaked to support a struggling new Church.

 

[wegs]

Now think about what just happened!

I'm confused where you're going with that, sorry?

 

[wegs]

I think the reason he said that was more pedestrian; he didn't want to get arrested (which would happen if you advocated disobeying the laws of the Roman Empire) or ostracized by the Jews (which would happen if you disregarded the laws of the Old Testament.) Of course that didn't work in the long run.

This isn't disputed actually in certain christian circles.

Especially since the term used to describe her ("almah" in the earliest text we can find) was translated as "virgin" in the case of Mary, but as "young woman" when used elsewhere in the bible.

Agreed; I think they had a lot to do with it. The Gospels were very carefully vetted/tweaked to support a struggling new Church.

Don't disagree w/anything you've said here, billvon.


Something interesting to note. During the early times of Christianty, there were two branches ...one was Catholic 'Orthodox', and the other...Gnosticism. There was a pseudo battle of the ''churches,'' as Gnostics of course, wanted people to come join them...while the Orthodox Catholics wanted people to join their church.
Mankind fighting over who would 'own God.' Sigh.

Gnosticism is still practiced today, but I wouldn't categorize it as an 'organized religion.' Below, I included a link...FAR cry from what the original Catholic Church taught...and even still teaches, today. Hmmmm! Whatever happened to those early Gnostics anyways? :shrug:

So...makes you wonder again.

History is history. And people of faith would be wise to know the history of how the Bible came to be, who compiled it, and what has been omitted.

Here's a link that really gives a pretty thorough look at Gnosticism.

http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Opening post,

This indicates that either Muslims are more religious than Christians, or Christians know that their laws would never be accepted as the law of the land.

Wow. Are these the only two options your mind can conceive.

What about freedom of choice?

First of all it has been a hard fought battle against Catholics to even get Freedom of Choice as it stands today. The bloody Catholics Took over Rome, Germany, France, Spain, and took a nice run at England. Their Crusades and Inquisitions were as brutal as any supporting Sharia Law.

Millions died at the hand of Catholics. Even scientists like Giordano_Bruno were burned at the stake merely for suggesting the Sun was a Star (which it is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

How much knowledge was lost in their burning of libraries.

However,

The Catholic Religion was run like an army and in some cases went by the motto, "Kill them all and let god sort them out" (true).

Now the Catholics have very little military power if any, so we are safe from them.

Choice now is the key word.

This indicates that either Muslims are more religious than Christians, or Christians know that their laws would never be accepted as the law of the land.

You obviously believe religion should be shoved down peoples throats until they only puke religion!

Is it truly religion if people only pretend to believe out of fear of death by stoning?

Choice is key.

In my country people can choose to worship any religion they choose, or not.

An above poster above said Christians DO try to impose their will when people are too young to fight for themselves as in the case of abortion, and many Christians fight over abortion policies.

I think the Opening comments in the Opening post were ridiculous and narrow minded, and this entire thread is a waste of space.

 

[Robittybob1]

When he obeyed it; same way we do today.



No, I think both are pretty full of mistakes. The above was just an example of Jesus saying, without equivocation, that not one tiny bit of the old law (i.e. the Old Testament) will be invalidated until earth and heaven pass away. In fact two different authors claimed that Jesus said that.

If you believe in the inerrancy of the New Testament, that means that the Old Testament must be valid too. If you think both might have errors/misstatements/translation mistakes/tampering then you can, of course, interpret it as you like . . .



?? If you never murder anyone, does that mean that you have "fulfilled the law" and thus your kids don't have to follow laws against murder? He says quite clearly that if you break the least of the Old Testament laws you will be looked at quite unfavorably. Time limit - until the heavens and earth pass away.

If it was just a matter of abiding by a few silly rules, half the Jewish population could have been contenders for being the Christ then! No; I don't think fulfillment is achieved this way. So I see you and I have different meanings for that word.
I think that Heaven and Earth don't need to pass away since the law was fulfilled by Jesus. So I now obey his laws (commandments) which are written on my heart and mind.

 

[Robittybob1]

I'm confused where you're going with that, sorry?

Sorry about that. Jesus had just told Mary that St.John is her son, and then told told St. John that Mary (the Mother of Jesus) is his biological mother. Finally they are reunited after 48 years of being unknown to each other. Abandoned at birth and now reunited, so Mary has offspring that can look after her in her old age (for she was about 16 years older than her boys adds up to 64-65 years old at that time).
In what circumstances would a mother not know her son?

 

[wegs]

Sorry about that. Jesus had just told Mary that St.John is her son, and then told told St. John that Mary (the Mother of Jesus) is his biological mother. Finally they are reunited after 48 years of being unknown to each other. Abandoned at birth and now reunited, so Mary has offspring that can look after her in her old age (for she was about 16 years older than her boys adds up to 64-65 years old at that time).
In what circumstances would a mother not know her son?

Some theorists have it that Thomas, not John, was the 'twin' brother.
At the foot of the cross, during Jesus' crucifixion, I believe he was referring to Mary and John in the sense that Mary is now his mother. Not literally. Spiritually.
She is the Mother of mankind, so to speak. (This is largely a Catholic belief, but it's no one's belief that John was her bio son)

Secondly, Jesus was roughly anywhere from 30 to 33 years of age (not 48?), his ministry lasting a total of 3 years, it's been estimated.

I'm not trying to poke at your facts, Bob...but to think Jesus was referring to John as Mary's bio son, is just not true. James, was John's brother.

 

[Robittybob1]

Some theorists have it that Thomas, not John, was the 'twin' brother.
At the foot of the cross, during Jesus' crucifixion, I believe he was referring to Mary and John in the sense that Mary is now his mother. Not literally. Spiritually.
She is the Mother of mankind, so to speak. (This is largely a Catholic belief, but it's no one's belief that John was her bio son)

Secondly, Jesus was roughly anywhere from 30 to 33 years of age (not 48?), his ministry lasting a total of 3 years, it's been estimated.

I'm not trying to poke at your facts, Bob...but to think Jesus was referring to John as Mary's bio son, is just not true. James, was John's brother.

There is a difference sometimes between what we are taught and what the facts are. I'd write to explain it but I can't.

 

[billvon]

If it was just a matter of abiding by a few silly rules, half the Jewish population could have been contenders for being the Christ then!

?? You didn't ask how someone became the Christ. You asked how someone fulfilled the laws of the time. They did so by obeying them, just as we do today. Doing so does not make you anything other than law abiding.