Christanity is no law religion because they believe that previous laws were cancelled.

In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus stated: “17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the [way of] the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18For, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”

This is also confirmed by the following Quran verse:

“And in their footsteps, I sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah that had come before him, and I gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Torah that had come before it,”

However, Paul, who claimed to be a disciple of Jesus, systematically cancelled the laws. In his letter to the Romans, chapter 7:6, he stated, “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.”

How can a normal man cancel the divine laws just like that?

To fulfil means to "close that chaper" .. not to erase it.

FULFIL (fulfilled, fulfilling)

• FULFIL (verb)
The verb FULFIL has 3 senses:

1. put in effect
2. fill or meet a want or need
3. fulfil the requirements or expectations of


http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/fulfil.htm

ful·fill also ful·fil (fl-fl)
tr.v. ful·filled, ful·fill·ing, ful·fills also ful·fils
1. To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.
2. To carry out (an order, for example).
3. To measure up to; satisfy. See Synonyms at perform, satisfy.
4. To bring to an end; complete.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fulfilled


nice try Icetea.

next!

Ice,
Jesus also says in that very verse 'For I say to you'.
He doesn't say 'I say to you from God'. This is implying Jesus IS God from the Bible.
Do you agree with that or are you gonna start cherry-picking the Bible again?

ful·fill also ful·fil (fl-fl)
tr.v. ful·filled, ful·fill·ing, ful·fills also ful·fils
1. To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.
2. To carry out (an order, for example).
3. To measure up to; satisfy. See Synonyms at perform, satisfy.
4. To bring to an end; complete.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fulfilled


nice try Icetea.

next!


So only you select what you like out of the 4 options.

Read it agian: "I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them", he said not to abolish and that means fulfil is to bring into actuality or confirm previous laws.

Thread, For I say to you means he is a prophet delivering God message to his people.

So the masses of the Christians + the pope do not understand their own Bible? That is the point?

Looks like you didn't read this part:

However, Paul, who claimed to be a disciple of Jesus, systematically cancelled the laws. In his letter to the Romans, chapter 7:6, he stated, “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.”

Can you JUST answer YES OR NO?

That was the answer to your question.

No...I made a simple yes-no question saying:
"So the masses of the Christians + the pope do not understand their own Bible? That is the point?"

I did not ask for excerpts from the Bible. I can do that myself.
I asked for your 'Yes' or 'No'.

Forget about Christians now, what do you understand from this verse?

Jesus stated: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the [way of] the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them".

Ice,
Jesus also says in that very verse 'For I say to you'.
He doesn't say 'I say to you from God'. This is implying Jesus IS God from the Bible.

Do you agree with that or are you gonna start cherry-picking the Bible again?

You are educated and wise enough.
It your choice to interpret gospel, surely we will be knowing more as practicing Christian.
As you believe the God incarnated as “Jesus” OK.
It is better to compare with Hindus and older than your scripture, they believe God incarnated as “Rama” “Krishna” etc.,
Would you like to speak something for Hindus, which incarnated God they should accept?

Forget about Christians now, what do you understand from this verse?

Man, you're thick.

It MEANS that chapter is closed. It MEANS he has fulfilled them. As in: a promise has been fulfilled. Therefore the promise has finished. Been done. Completed. Brought to an end. Halass.

That part is over. Not cancelled. Not removed. Just over.

Go on avoiding TL's and my posts and you are nothing more than an internet troll.

Good day.

You are educated and wise enough.
It your choice to interpret gospel, surely we will be knowing more as practicing Christian.
As you believe the God incarnated as “Jesus” OK.
It is better to compare with Hindus and older than your scripture, they believe God incarnated as “Rama” “Krishna” etc.,
Would you like to speak something for Hindus, which incarnated God they should accept?

Thank you, I'm kinda educated but not very wise.
You stated that it's 'my' choice to interpret gospel. No, it isn't. It is the Christians' choice to intepret the gospel. Jeff had said countless times on the Sabla that when Jesus says 'I tell you' it means God tells you...As Christians or at least the Catholics who Jeff/Thalia/wudjab and others represent here believe it that way.
I don't believe God was incarnated as Jesus, do not put words in my mouth.
Finally, following your analogy, do you think a Muslim should compare his scripture with Hindu scripture to find out which is better?

It MEANS that chapter is closed. It MEANS he has fulfilled them. As in: a promise has been fulfilled. Therefore the promise has finished. Been done. Completed. Brought to an end. Halass.

That part is over. Not cancelled. Not removed. Just over.

Let me give you an example, you have a new boss and the previous one made law that you can't leave office before 4 PM, the new boss said in his first day in office I came not abolish the timing law (i.e 4 PM) but to fulfil it. Does this means he came to put an end to this rule or to continue following it?

fulfilled in maltese is twettaq,
meaning acheiving closure.

Do you follow the maltese version of the Bible?

Maybe you should check the orginal version of the Bible which is Aramic.

Do you follow the maltese version of the Bible?

Maybe you should check the orginal version of the Bible which is Aramic.
i have the English version (the Jerusalem Bible) the Bibbja bil Malti (Saydon)
both versions are translated from Aramaic and both are Nihil Obstat by the vatican. (approved as official versions by the Vatican)

to continue, in every bible you get footnotes as to what the certain words were in aramaic, so there is no confusion as to what fulfillment means.
if anyone has any doubts, there are many bible study encyclopaedias that explain the semantics of the words, i.e their origins and the history of the translation of the word.
such bible encyclopadias are also endorsed/published by the vatican.

I think the original Aramaic version doesn't exists anymore, if there is Aramaic version then it's being translated from Greek version.

I think the original Aramaic version doesn't exists anymore, if there is Aramaic version then it's being translated from Greek version.
i don't know i'll look it up and answer you.
the profs who translated the bible into maltese was a professor of theology and classical languages. aramaic one of them.

God in Aramaic and Arabic sound the same.


1. "elahh" is the way the word "hhla" (spelled from right to left as it is Aramaic) is pronounced.

2. The words "Elahh", "hhla (read from right to left)" and "Allah" all have the "h" letter and pronunciation in them.

3- "Allah" in Arabic is pronounced as "Al-lawh" or "Al-lah" depending on the sentence that it is used in. In Arabic, the sound of the word "Allah" could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

4- The Aramaic word "hhla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elahh" which means "GOD" is pronounced as "El-aw" as show above.

5- The Aramaic word "hla (read from right to left)", which is transliterated as "elah" which means "oak" is pronounced as "Ay-law" also as shown above.

6- "Allah" in Arabic is pronounced as "Al-lawh" or "Al-lah" depending on the sentence that it is used in. In Arabic, the sound of the word "Allah" could be thicker (Allawh) or thinner (Allah) depending on the sentence.

7- The Hebew word "Elohim" is the plural of "Elowah", which is derived from the Aramaic word "Alaha", or "Elahh"; the same as the Arabic word "Allah" or "Allawh" in pronunciation.

If we pronounce the words "Allah" in Arabic and "Elahh (pronounced as 'El-aw')" in Aramaic, then we would hear almost the same exact word.

not all the bible was in aramaic. a lot of the new testament was in greek. but i'll leave that to the vatican funded missionary of sabla, mr. jeff (i am joking in case you take this literally)

Seems like someone doesn't like to be wrong :rolleyes:

But Jesus pbuh preached in Aramiac, right?

God in Aramaic and Arabic sound the same.
wonder of wonders in all semitic languages too (maltese included. )

Icy,

Didn't Dr. Bilal Philips (you know the 'islamic scholar' who says Shia are not true muslims) already answered your questions on the site where you copied this post from anyway.

http://www.al-sunnah.com/true_message_of_jesus.htm

Bilal Philips was a Christian before I heard!

Maybe.

But he believes that Shia's are not muslim.

Apparently not a good Christian.
And not a very good Muslim as well.

You can have him.

Still the answer doesn't make sense and not satisfying.

Let us see, if the Jesus meant to close that chapter then he will not say "18For, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.".

Second point, there was no need for Paul to say “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.”

Notice the word 'now'.

And after how many years from Jesus death Paul issued that order?

Still the answer doesn't make sense and not satisfying.

Let us see, if the Jesus meant to close that chapter then he will not say "18For, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.".

Second point, there was no need for Paul to say “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.”

Notice the word 'now'.

And after how many years from Jesus death Paul issued that order?
afaik, the first verse refers to Moral Law.

Second to the 'laws of moses'.

Not that you care, but I felt like showing some comradery. I know I'll regret it. lol

Now we are talking.

I disagree with you the first and second verses both refers to the 'laws of Moses".

And you didn't answer Paul's part.

Now we are talking.

I disagree with you the first and second verses both refers to the 'laws of Moses".

And you didn't answer Paul's part.
I am not a biblical expert. You'll have to wait for Jeff.. or try google. He's your friend.


The first is Moral law. Afaik. Even if it meant the laws of moses, His death happened to bring those laws to an end. From his death forward.

"Now" is a figure of speech. He is talking AFTER the death of christ. Which the whole reason for it was to bring an end for the need of the laws of moses.

So I can say that too.. that "now" we dont need the laws of Moses. It doesn't mean that yesterday we did.

You're playing with words and wasting my time. Do you really have nothing better to do all day?

Just curious.

Sorry Thalia you don't make sense.

You forgot the word "But" before "Now".

Example: you used to eat banana then you say But now I don't like eating banana. What does it emans? it means you used to like eating it but now you don't like it.

Even the first verse refers to the laws of Moses, he said think not that I came to ablolish the laws (means he was talking about Moses laws), it's clear. Moral or not it doesn't matter.

*yawn*


you see?

You're insufferable. :hyper:

Good day Icetea. :D

Try to be serious.

So the masses of the Christians + the pope do not understand their own Bible? That is the point?
Yes, they don't understand their own Bible, they don't know even who said what in the Bible, nor they know who "exactly" wrote the Bible, neither they know how many hands were put in effect to deform the Bible Nor they do know anything but as much as they are sure that "Something Is Wrong" about this Book they are using which just named the Bible because it is the 'combination' of everything possible to refer back to Jesus and his teachings to people.

The Bible which people are reading now is not the words of Jesus, it was written far away after the death of Jesus himself. Sadly some are trying to authenticate it sense many things inside seems not really set up correctly.

Tomorrow if someone came and said that he discoved a copy of the Bible that was written before King James's copy was made, sure the world will get more confused and this 'out of the moon' copy may find its way into the current version!

Let us just face the facts.

Thank you, I'm kinda educated but not very wise.
You stated that it's 'my' choice to interpret gospel. No, it isn't. It is the Christians' choice to intepret the gospel. Jeff had said countless times on the Sabla that when Jesus says 'I tell you' it means God tells you...As Christians or at least the Catholics who Jeff/Thalia/wudjab and others represent here believe it that way.
I don't believe God was incarnated as Jesus, do not put words in my mouth.
Finally, following your analogy, do you think a Muslim should compare his scripture with Hindu scripture to find out which is better?

That is typically wrong my friend. Think of yourself in place of Jesus, now will you refer to yourself as "HE"? or "I"? when to choose to say "I" and when to chose to say "HE"? And if both are "IDENTICAL" why not only use one of them?

I know that what I am saying is not really digestable to many Christians because they were brought up "This Way" thinking that both are "ONE" while in fact they are "NOT"!

Haroun...That 'fact' we as Muslims believe.
Christians do not need to digest it at all anyhow if they are not finding any beauty in Islam...As much beauty as you and I find. Just like we do not need to digest anything about Jesus being God and God being Jesus.
What I was saying is that (as Christians made it clear to me on this Sabla) when Jesus says 'I tell you' it is different since all other 'prophets' in the Bible never used that form.
This is what (the Sabla) Christians believe is the interpretation of their own Bible.
If you think they all don't understand it good then you should not show a SINGLE spark of anger when a non-Muslim comes up and says, 'All Muslims are misled. The Qura'n and hadith are both totally wrong and completely uncivilised as well as extremely bloodthirsty'. No double standards is all I'm calling for...

The Bible which people are reading now is not the words of Jesus, it was written far away after the death of Jesus himself.

That is a fact.

Also the first version was in Aramaic which doesn't exists anymore, if it's exists it's then being translated from Greek.

Christianity is a very confusing religion, it's built on assumptions and theories made by humans.

the Bible is so contradicting with the laws of the Old Testament which Jesus pbuh himself said he came to fulfil the OT laws not to abolish them, but unfortunately all the laws of the OT was abolished by the so called disciples like Peter whom I don't know who he is and who told him to cancel such laws, he is no prophet or messenger and he doesn't have the divine authority from God to do so.

Haroun...That 'fact' we as Muslims believe.
Christians do not need to digest it at all anyhow if they are not finding any beauty in Islam...As much beauty as you and I find. Just like we do not need to digest anything about Jesus being God and God being Jesus.
What I was saying is that (as Christians made it clear to me on this Sabla) when Jesus says 'I tell you' it is different since all other 'prophets' in the Bible never used that form.
This is what (the Sabla) Christians believe is the interpretation of their own Bible.
If you think they all don't understand it good then you should not show a SINGLE spark of anger when a non-Muslim comes up and says, 'All Muslims are misled. The Qura'n and hadith are both totally wrong and completely uncivilised as well as extremely bloodthirsty'. No double standards is all I'm calling for...
My friend, I won't be sad or angry when a non-Muslim says that Quran is false. I will debate and the one who is right is the one who wins.

Now let us say it loud and clear. Black and white are clear, thought right and wrong. God in Quran said to 'debate' with Christians with the best possible way that means, there is "Something" to be debated. If not God would have instructed us to 'leave it' to their own 'understanding'.

Think it again, it is not that complicated, but only people don't like to confess their mistakes.

I have to confess that I don't like IceTea's way of debate because he uses more of 'confirmation' to Islamic info rather than speaking from the other side. In other words he speaks from the Quran to prove while Christians don't approve the Quran at the very first place. That is the only thing.

Other than that, and sitting in 'label-less' seats we can make a more 'inspiring' discussions regarding the subject in hand.

This thread is taking 3 directions in discussion with lots of explanations chit chatting :bored:

Nothing clear to discuss :rolleyes:

This thread is locked.