Quran Vs Bible

Im not talking about Jews. I am talking about the Bible and the Christian doctrine it contains. You people are the ones who think they can observe Christians behavior and determine the content of the bible.

 

By the way, I feel like this should be pointed out: the curse of Ham is what I was talking about to begin with. According to your own interpretation, the "negroid" people are the decedents of Ham. Ham's descendants were cursed by God with slavery. White slave owners used this as a Biblical justification for the African slave trade, and your interpretation seems to align perfectly with theirs on the nature of Ham. This is starting to feel like my Sunday school all over again.

 

It means that Paul probably did not contradict what Jesus said. Otherwise he’d hardly have been accepted as an apostle by those who still knew what Jesus had said.

Depends on who you ask.

If you go to a synagogue, the answer of the people there will most certainly be “no”. They are still waiting for the Messiah.

If you asked the author of the Gospel of Matthew, that you’ve cited from, the answer would probably be “yes”. He believed Jesus is the Messiah.


That a guy who got himself crucified should be the Messiah was a totally counterintuitive idea for Jews back then, so throughout the entire Gospel of Matthew the author keeps referencing OT-prophecies about the promised Messiah and points out how events in Jesus‘ life “fulfilled” them.
See for example Mt 1:22+23 citing Isaiah 7:14:

“22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us&#8221.”

After arguing how Jesus had ticked all messianic boxes by fulfilling prophecy after prophecy in the very way He went through His passion, died on the cross and got resurrected, the Gospel of Matthew ends with the risen Christ telling his disciples:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Mt. 28:18b-20)

To find out what it was that Jesus commanded, go right back to the passage you’ve cited from: the famous Sermon On The Mount. In this Sermon Jesus re-interprets “the law” in light of the two laws that He deems most important: Love of God and love of neighbour. In the verse you quoted (Mt. 5:17) Jesus prepares the Jewish audience for the shocker that is to come: the “It is written …, but I say to you … “ , that got people’s heads turned, “because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Mt. 7:29).
Then Jesus keeps debating with these “teachers of the law” - Pharisees like Saul was one - about how to interpret the law. He freaks them out by socializing with sinners, letting his disciples eat with unwashed hands, healing on the Sabbath and by being much cleverer than them when arguing for why scripture says this is ok with God.

So do you really think Paul would have served Christ better had he stuck to his old Pharisaic teachings instead of committing himself to “the Law of Christ” (, who after all – again according to Matthew – had pointed out that “what goes into someone's mouth does not defile them” (Mt 15:11)?
Well, making "disciples of all nations" would have been impossible then. Try sharing the Eucharist with people from gentile nations, when their very presence at the dinner table makes you feel ritually impure.

 

Im not.

 

Nope. That's why the law of Moses and the old Testament hasn't disappeared. The Jews are still following it. Revelations in the end times speaks of Jews converting to Christianity

Revelations3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

 

The "flood" was a writing technique that was very useful 3000 years ago, when no one would believe evolution, 22 human species that spanned 7 million years as we evolved, an extinction that occurred starting 40,000 years ago, and step by step eliminated Neanderthals, one group at a time, or any of the things we know today, but were totally unbelievable to the ancients.

The flood of modern man out-of-Africa was what the Bible was reporting in a way that used to established tales and myths about a grat flood story written by the previous generations.
This vehicle to the writer was both convenient and useful, while it said stuff that people already believed about a flood of water.

There was no other way to tell the truth back then, but by metaphor.

 

What is the difference between Serfdom and Slavery, except degree under some circumstances???

Your distaste for Slavery is a modern bias when Indenture was a willing passport for many people who had to use it for specific times under certain circumstances.


"A worker seeking a new start in America signed an indenture agreement,* which stipulated that he was borrowing money for his transportation and would repay the lender by performing labor for a set period. Skilled laborers were often indentured for four or five years, while unskilled workers often had to remain under the master’s control for seven or more years.

In addition to receiving passage to America, the servant would be provided with food, shelter, and clothing. Perhaps as many as 300,000 workers migrated under the terms of these agreements. Most were males, generally in their late teens and early twenties, but thousands of women also entered into these agreements and often worked off their debts as domestic servants.

Treatment of indentured servants differed greatly from one master to another. In some areas, slaves were treated more humanely because they were regarded as lifetime investments, while the servant would be gone in a few years."

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1157.html

 

So are you saying that the Bible was right about the abundant numbers of African slaves which did exist and was what happened, or are you angry that God knew this was going to happen and said so?

 

"The fossil record shows Homo sapiens living in southern and eastern Africa at least 100,000 and possibly 150,000 years ago. Around 40,000 years ago, the species' expansion out of Africa launched the colonization of the planet by modern human beings. By 10,000 BCE, Homo sapiens had spread to all corners of the old world. Their migration is traced by linguistic, cultural and genetic evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africa

The 40,000 year duration is a paleontological fact which compares well with the metaphor in Genesis.

- - - Updated - - -

"The fossil record shows Homo sapiens living in southern and eastern Africa at least 100,000 and possibly 150,000 years ago. Around 40,000 years ago, the species' expansion out of Africa launched the colonization of the planet by modern human beings. By 10,000 BCE, Homo sapiens had spread to all corners of the old world. Their migration is traced by linguistic, cultural and genetic evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africa

The 40,000 year duration is a paleontological fact which compares well with the metaphor in Genesis.

 

Now you're going into another entirely different topic. That is, did the OT prophesied Jesus.

What we're debating now is did Paul contradict Jesus' words. IMO, he did. He changes Jesus' message.
Now I am no expert on each words, other than what I've presented so far, but no one has shown where Paul even has the authority to speak for Jesus, much less contradict him.

 

Why you talking about the Jews? The post right above this one to me you said you're not.
What does your revelation verse even mean? Synagogue of satan? What? Not jews but liars, what?
You claim your an atheist, so how does an atheist interpret that verse? Many christians don't even think that book, 'revelations', is nothing more than a story and not a prediction of end times.
Are you telling me as an atheist, you are saying it is talking about end times?

And if you're talking about revelations and end times, that seems a much greater havoc on mankind than what the koran is teaching. But your claim is the bible is better than the koran.

 

You are free to believe all of that. No one else is obligated to believe it without evidence.

This guy answered it better than I ever could: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080121143943AAkddNk

Let it be noted, however, that I don’t approve of either institution. Serfdom only became “necessary” because of feudalism, after feudal lords claimed the Commons for themselves. Before then, people could grow and catch their own food on commonly owned land.

Your taste for slavery is an ancient bias. In case it isn't obvious by now, I'm not a cultural relativist. And Indenture may be willing, but slavery isn't. That is an important distinction.

Even your own source distinguishes between indentured servitude and slavery. Please quit equating them. It is intellectually dishonest. There was nothing “voluntary” about slavery.

It takes enormous stretches to make it “[compare] well”. You are free to accept that interpretation. There is no reason for me to accept it. Besides, as I have pointed out many times, it has nothing to do with our discussion.

That’s a ridiculous false dilemma. I am saying that people believed that God said these things, so they acted accordingly. This is the laziest “fulfillment” of prophecy possible.

You are also swapping concepts again. According to the Bible, God didn’t just say this was going to happen or know it was going to happen . . . he commanded it.

 

Yes, God is Reality.

These things do happen, such that a person may need to trade his work rights for food and shelter under certain conditions.
Consider the salvation which Joseph offered all Egypt in 1700BC, when money was no good because the food supplies had dried up, and things were not growing enough to even support life:

Gen 47:13 And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.

14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.

15 And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.

16 And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.

17 And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.

18 When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands:

19 Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.

20 And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh's.

 

So there is no difference between something happening and God commanding it to happen? The Holocaust? The Trail of Tears? The horrors of ISIS?

You keep speaking as if this is the only condition of slavery. As has been pointed out several times, you are incorrect. I've mentioned several conditions leading to slavery in the Bible, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with a voluntary "trade".

 

It is NOT "intellectually dishonest" to report what authorities on the issue of indentured peoples and slaves have to say about the servitude.
That indentured people negotiate their agreements and have the conditions more in "writing" does not change the fact that both were considered "property" owned by the master.

Slavery and Indentured Servants:Law Library of ... - American Memory
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html
Before the Civil War, slaves and indentured servants were considered personal property, and they or their descendants could be sold or inherited like any other property...

You are bias because slavery went out of fashion in 1776 as the world had changed from Serfdoms to the start of the Industrial Revolution, and wages and money and jobs replaced the old ways.

 

Your sources make a distinction between slavery and indentured servitude. You blur that same line. And you pretend that slavery was solely a voluntary affair.

I am biased towards empathy, reason and basic ethics. I am biased in that I do not accept cultural relativism as an excuse for moral evil.

 

It is wrong to object to slavery as a bad thing, when conditions may be such that slave-conditions exist because of the circumstances.

Prisoners can be slaves on the Road Gangs, and work to pay off the debt to society.
Indenturement can be voluntary slavery because it supplies food and shelter when there was none before.
Rome once killed 1/3rd of the male population after war with the tribe or nation, while "allowing" 1/3rd to live if they would become slaves, and the other 1/3rd to continue to produce in their own nation as they had done before, but pay taxes to Rome.

Was the war wrong for Rome to win,... or ought the "barbarians" as they were called, win and do as they might???

Slavery is the lowest step on the staircase to survival, and it is an economic means of distribution of goods and services among the other 11 types available to mankind.
That is just the facts of Reality.
Face it.

 

Haaahaaaa,...
I do not accept death, either.

All Egypt went into slavery according to Gen 47, because no land or animals remained for the people who had traded their property for surviving in a long crisis they had not prepared for.
God DID make survival possible by supporting enslavement when necessary.

 

Not when the circumstances are man made. "Slavery is necessary because we made it necessary, therefore it is okay" is as absurd as it is immoral.

I've already brought up other kinds of slaves.

Then you should have no problem proving that it was practiced by every civilization. Good luck.

 

Good for you. I actually believe that things like infanticide, rape and slavery are wrong. "Those were the days" is not an adequate response. I noticed that your cultural relativism disappears every time you defend patriarchy and attack "harlots".

Humans created those conditions. Humans could have easily instituted another solution. Humans are responsible for instituting an immoral solution.

 

No it does not take "a stretch" to compare the list of 22 names in Genesis with the 22 now extinct species in our own line of survival.
The comparison is well founded if Truth is what we seek from scripture.

The word people have "decided" to use for 950 "years" does need mean "years" only.
The word has a meaning which one today can better choose to fit the facts and the meaning of the story, and see that millenniums as a division of time are what God had meant.
The "ark" clear, was the brain of modern man which survived and to this day remembers the names of the animal it carried into this age.

 

Why? In response to you posting and I quoted


The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Pointing out that in fact the law of the prophets Moses have not disappeared, JUST like Jesus said. The Jews still follow those laws.

 

Please take it to another thread if you would like to discuss it. This is completely off topic.

 

Huh...?
You think that humans can stop starvation because Jesus said feed hungry?

Perhaps Joseph might have paid and stored all Pharaoh's food and then just give his money and property away so the farmers and land owners could act like nothing had actually happened,... except Pharaoh went broke and killed Joseph???

I believe that Joseph asked the people who had enjoyed the good times and forgotten about saving then had to work a slaves under their own indenturement to get what Joseph had wisely set aside for just this reason.

These were those people who would have laughed at Joseph saving for years for this "prophecy" he had made.
It makes sense to me that Joseph was trading the very things these men had bought by avoiding the Reality which was coming, and now they were trading their labor for what was really important, i.e.; their own survival.

 

I quoted them and didnt interpret them. And I would interpret that to mean that during the times of the revelations in the future, jews and their old testament laws will still be around acording to the bible. Just like Jesus said.