Not really. It merely shows that Jesus had a low view of either one particular religion or certain people's way of observing their religion. Most likely the latter, IMO.
You paraphrased Gandhi's famous line, and someone a while back (was it you?) supposed that I feel that way, too. Actually, not so much! For two reasons:
1. Jesus is quoted saying a lot of very good, wise words. Most of what He said, I think, falls into that category. But He also is said to have said some very unwise, even atrocious things! Things that no mere mortal would ever think to say, and expect to be loved and admired for them. "Love me more than you love your family." "If you don't believe, you are condemned." "If you forsake your family for my name's sake, you will be rewarded with eternal life." "Take no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself." "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." So, my opinion of Jesus is, shall we say, mixed?
2. I love Christians! Most of them are good, kind, loving people. Some of them aren't so nice, but those are in the minority, in my experience. My theory is that if you are already a jerk when you join one of the more literalist sects of Christianity (it happens also in more liberal sects, but not as often, IMO), there is a good chance that you will use your new "faith" to become even more of a jerk. If you're already a good person, you may use it to become better.
Ah, then I am corrected where you are concerned.
1) Because I accept all these. All of them. Which do you dislike? Why?
2) Amen.
1) Because I accept all these. All of them. Which do you dislike? Why?
I dislike all the ones I quoted. One e.g., for now: Take no thought for the morrow. No planning? Just let the things of tomorrow take care of themselves? It's dumb! Asking for trouble! That's why I dislike it.
Quote:
2) Amen.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
To deny that Jesus prayed and fasted and not to himself is to deny the First Law - that God is One and is not shared. Authority is in Allah only, not in the New Testament and for certain not in the council of Nicea who gathered all writings together and burned what they wished / selected what they wished to be included in it.
Again, you need to do more research before you make wild claims. There were only a very few if any books of the Bible that were not certain of being inspired by the time of Nicea. Within the first 30-50 years of church history (long predating the Nicean Council, all of the books of the Old Testament except for Esther, and all of the New Testament with the exception of II and III John and a bit of debate concerning Revelation were believed to be Scripture. There were a very few other texts that were considered, and some of them were included at Nicea even though there were doubts about them, and they were from the intertestamental period.
Further, I have never denied that there is absolutely one God. He created for himself a human body, dwelt in it, that body prayed, suffered, and died, whereupon three days later He rose from the dead under His own power, and then ascended into Heaven. You may deny the New Testament's authenticity, but then you undercut the Koran from which used it to claim that Christ was indeed a prophet of Allah.
__________________
I am an Apostolic Pentecostal. Apostolic in teaching, and Pentecostal in experience.
Originally Posted by bbyrd009
Ah. Sadly, as has been demon-strated in a post above.... The justest word you will likely get over here is "terrorist," Oh- "moose-lem."
Yes, go ahead make an issue out of him being called "moose-lem".
He comes in here mocking my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
And remember one thing:
Not all muslims are suicide bombers,
but all suicide bombers are muslims.
Yes, go ahead make an issue out of him being called "moose-lem".
He comes in here mocking my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!
And remember one thing:
Not all muslims are suicide bombers,
but all suicide bombers are muslims.
Hmm, I don't gather that from his posts, or the Qur'an;
and really don't wish to make issues. I'm sure you don't need me
to tell you that mocking a perceived mocker is just mocking.
Not all Christians are Korresh,
but all Korreshs are Christians?
C'mon Dordt.
...Further, I have never denied that there is absolutely one God. He created for himself a human body, dwelt in it, that body prayed, suffered, and died, whereupon three days later He rose from the dead under His own power, and then ascended into Heaven. You may deny the New Testament's authenticity, but then you undercut the Koran from which used it to claim that Christ was indeed a prophet of Allah.
See how close we really are, when the differences
in culture and lineage are taken into account.
We are descended from Catholicism,
even though "Protestant," and I find
much of Islam's differentiation is actually
directed in that vein. I see the rest as
semantics arguments?
Or let me put it this way; for every objection
that a Christian might have with a Muslim's doctrine,
I think I can show a reflection that a Trinny might have
with a Oneness. And vice-versa.
The difference is that they have only their creeds to support the Trinitarian position, and have to twist Scripture to make it fit their them. We do not use the creeds, our creed is nothing less than the inspired Word of God.
Islam is either true or it is false, and when one uses it to undercut the New Testament, it calls its own authenticity into question. The Koran can not be true because no matter how you look at the situation, it undercuts its own authority. The Bible does no such thing.
__________________
I am an Apostolic Pentecostal. Apostolic in teaching, and Pentecostal in experience.
The difference is that they have only their creeds to support the Trinitarian position, and have to twist Scripture to make it fit their them. We do not use the creeds, our creed is nothing less than the inspired Word of God.
Islam is either true or it is false, and when one uses it to undercut the New Testament, it calls its own authenticity into question. The Koran can not be true because no matter how you look at the situation, it undercuts its own authority. The Bible does no such thing.
Who is the "they" in the 1st paragraph, Catholics?
Well, you say they have creeds and Onesies don't?
But I think Onesie creeds are just called something else.
"Islam is either true or it is false, and when one uses it to undercut the New Testament, it calls its own authenticity into question."
I agree, and dislike this "them v us" approach, intensely.
I truly think this undercutting you refer to is largely explained
in the semantics, cultural diffs, or recognition of the realities
of the era in which it was written, considering the Catholic church's
assertiveness in that period.
you say the Bible does no such thing, but to be honest,
Scripture tells us that Kenites were made scribes,
and I have to say that you are naturally culturally blind here,
prolly me too mostly.
Just try and tell a kid their father isn't perfect, has some flaw,
for a similar reflection, maybe.
Linear Mode
