Islam vs Christianity

[Strange]

The sword is a metaphor;

 

What, always?

[imatfaal]

The bible dictates many laws in England. But this is true it does not teach you how to make a plane, computer, car or phone. Or how to grow food, fish or anything else that might be actually relevant to human survival. Maybe you should join the jedi knights or the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

 

Really?

 

In as much as the Church follows the Bible (I realise that is very limited) then yes. The entire system of Equity - the law of trusts, much of land law, lots of property law, personal rights (basically half a year of a three year law degree) - comes from Church/Canon Law via the Court of Chancery. For many years there were dual jurisdictions in England - the Crown and the Church, Law and Equity, the Court and the Chancery; these were only really changed in the Judicature Acts of the late 19th. And Equity held sway over Law - an equitable right could be used to shield oneself from a legal challenge.

[Hans de Vries]

Non everythign that comes from Canon law also comes from the Bible. There is little corelation between these two.

 

Contraty to what common sense dictates, the Bible played a minor role in history of Canon law. Much greater role was played by Roman law ("Ecclesia vivit lege romana") and, to a lesser degree, by various customary legal codes of Europe.

@John Cuthber.

 

Laws from the Old Testment have nothing to do with killing infidels/expanding the religion by force. Those laws were never meant to be imposed on non-Jews. They were meant for a highly specific group of people (Jews) in a highly specific piece of land (israel)

 

More on the topic of the sword verse

That verse comes from Matthew. This is the same gospel that describes how Jesus was arrested. When Romans came to arrest Jesus, Peter drew a sword and cut off an ear of one of the soldiers. Jesus rebuked him harshly and said the famous sentence "who lives by the sword, dies by the sword"

 

If Jesus was a warmonger and his teachings are all about killing infidels - why didn't he allow his friend to defend him?

 

BTW

Edited November 24, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[Gilga-flesh]

Yay a religion vs religion thread ^^ and it even involves Islam, the most popular religion of the moment!!

 

I'm not religious but was raised to be (though neither Christian nor Muslim). I just didn't care much about authority including people telling me what to believe. I acknowledge some people will find it more difficult to go against culturally accepted, no obligated, beliefsystems so I don't hold it against anyone for not freeing themselves from a set of archaic rules that hardly made sense when they were first construed millennia ago. I also don't blame all followers of a religion for being part of said religion. For most, it will just be chance that determines which religion they get indoctrinated into.

 

That said, there does seem to be a few differences between Christianity and Islam. Both religions have scriptures with at least a number of violence encouraging passages. But while the biblical Jesus is depicted as some sort of proto-hippie, Mohammed hardly disguises the fact that he was, in fact, a conqueror.

 

It might not be a coincidence that Islam literally means surrender. When Mohammed and his army installed themselves in front of your town, he gave the people a choice: accept surrender/Islam and become a Muslim (literally he who has submitted) or accept death. So the religion grew pretty quick with people deciding it wasn't worth dying over which deity will ignore their prayers. And wouldnt-you-believe-it the most important man according to this new religon that Mohammed made up happens to be Mohammed! Further consolidating his hold over the very people he conquered and memetically enslaving their offspring for many generations after his own demise! Man that's a stroke of luck for Mohammed.

 

MY POINT:

Regardless whether a biblical Jesus existed or was merely a construction, he does appear to carry a message of peace and tolerance.. and he provides an innate excuse to ignore the onslaught of the old testament. (God got soft after he got a Son)

 

For the most part, Islam doesn't feel it needs to excuse the violence of Mohammed. Most Muslims don't like the clearly described cruelty and try to rationalize it but the un-ambiguous nature of Mohammed's life-history makes it considerably more difficult to extract a message of peace and brotherly love than it would be from the Bible. If the very prophet of the Überforce Himself annointed Mohammed as the most Holy Prophet that will show humanity the right pad to walk... had slaughtered people by the thousands for refusing to surrender... how can it be wrong to kill a few apostates?

 

That is the issue the peaceful Muslims are bothered with and I feel sorry for them.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Gilga-flesh

[Willie71]

About the sword verse from Matthew - Jesus was telling his Apostles that if they keep following him, their families may reject them - and in that case they should reject their families too (but they shouldn't if their families accept them). By sword he meant the "sword" separating his followers from their families.

 

As we can see -not much to do with actual warfare. every person that is even remotely aware of the life of Jesus, his personality and his style of speech, will not interpret this verse as a call to war.

 

 

I picked up a wrong title for the thread. It should be called "Bible - controversial passages" - since at least when it comes to Jesus, those controversial passages turn out to be not controversial at all .

This is the way I was taught the meaning of this passage. Sets up the us/vs them dichotomy so important to religions that require persecution to be meaningful. Edited December 1, 2015 by Willie71

[kisai]

The sword that Yeshua is referring to means an armed insurrection against the Pax Romana. It it very clear from his actions that he wished to incite a rebellion during Pasach by attacking moneychangers inside Herod's Temple. The synoptic Gospels are obviously edited to whitewash this insurgency, as key players (Pilate and Herod) are described much differently in The Antiquities of the Jews.

Edited December 1, 2015 by kisai

[Hans de Vries]

The sword that Yeshua is referring to means an armed insurrection against the Pax Romana. It it very clear from his actions that he wished to incite a rebellion during Pasach by attacking moneychangers inside Herod's Temple. The synoptic Gospels are obviously edited to whitewash this insurgency, as key players (Pilate and Herod) are described much differently in The Antiquities of the Jews.

If he truly wanted to start an insurrection, he would do it. But we know that neither he nor any of his disciples started any war against Rome - there were three uprisings in Judea after Jesus' death but they were all started by Jews who wanted Romans out of Israel.

 

Remember that Christianity was a virtually apolitical religion until 313 AD when Roman emperor Konstantin legalized it - it was only when Christianity fused with Roman Imperial doctrine (or rather Roman Emperors adopted elements of Christianity) that the first elements of political Christianity started to take shape.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[kisai]

If he truly wanted to start an insurrection, he would do it.

 

He attempted to start one, but he was arrested. I'm not sure how you can ascribe military certainty to a cult leader from the sticks. His followers were poor folks, not soldiers, with zero chance against the legionnaires.

 

 

 

Remember that Christianity was a virtually apolitical religion

 

Yeshua did not found Christianity. Paul of Tarsus was the prime driver, and he never met Yeshua, so I'm not certain how a citizen of Judea and a citizen of Cilicia would see eye to eye on things. It would behoove the early Christians to keep a political spitfire's actions on the down low, and instead focus on his homilies and mysticism.

Edited December 2, 2015 by kisai

[John Cuthber]

You might find this interesting.

[B. John Jones]

This is a continuation of discussion between me and John Cuthber from the Paris attack thread.

 

There, John quoted a verse from Mathew (10:34) that says:

To begin this discussion my question is - what type of sword did Jesus bring and how did he use it?

 

Primarily, he brought the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. Secondarily, he brought the sword as we know it, restrained. In one of the 4 gospels, Christ says to the Apostles before being arrested and crucified, "I have told you not to carry swords, but now I tell you, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." But when Peter took an arresting soldier's ear with his sword, Christ said, "enough!" healing the soldier's ear. Christ and Paul were in agreement, one having said, "Love your enemies," and the other, "If God be for us, who can be against us?" and "Our battle is not against flesh and blood." Every word spoken in Jesus' name is an offense to many.

[John Cuthber]

This phrase

"Primarily, he brought the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. " does not make sense.

Not that it matters much because your whole post was off topic.

[B. John Jones]

This phrase

"Primarily, he brought the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. " does not make sense.

Not that it matters much because your whole post was off topic.

 

How is it off-topic? The OP begins: "To begin this discussion my question is - what type of sword did Jesus bring and how did he use it?"

 

Actually, the Scripture uses these terms and symbols quite frequently.

[John Cuthber]

 

How is it off-topic?

Because the topic is Islam vs Christianity. (though I grant you, it's a lousy title).

[B. John Jones]

Because the topic is Islam vs Christianity. (though I grant you, it's a lousy title).

 

No, the title is "Islam vs Christianity." The topic is embodied in the opening question: What kind of sword did Christ approve of?

[John Cuthber]

What kind of sword did Christ approve of?

It isn't even possible to tell if the question has a meaning since there's a debate about whether or not "Christ" existed.

If he did (that's a big if) then the only records of what he might have thought are old books written (and re-written) many years after the alleged event by people who had their own clear agenda.

And that's probably why the various tales don't agree with eachother.

That's been followed up by a determined plan to reinterpret the books because they simply aren't very nice. These days, no book that tells you where to get your slaves and how to treat them can be taken seriously as a guide to morality.

 

And, once you realise that it's not being used as a moral guide, and it's not a history book,what's left?

Certainly nothing reliable so, as I said, there's no way to know the answer to your question.

 

Feel free to make up an answer- plenty of people have done it before and plenty will do it again.

[B. John Jones]

It isn't even possible to tell if the question has a meaning since there's a debate about whether or not "Christ" existed.

If he did (that's a big if) then the only records of what he might have thought are old books written (and re-written) many years after the alleged event by people who had their own clear agenda.

And that's probably why the various tales don't agree with eachother.

That's been followed up by a determined plan to reinterpret the books because they simply aren't very nice. These days, no book that tells you where to get your slaves and how to treat them can be taken seriously as a guide to morality.

 

And, once you realise that it's not being used as a moral guide, and it's not a history book,what's left?

Certainly nothing reliable so, as I said, there's no way to know the answer to your question.

 

Feel free to make up an answer- plenty of people have done it before and plenty will do it again.

 

Nonsense. Any devoted follower of a figure of Jesus' stature, who would endeavor to write an account of his life, or of the birth of his church, would spend at the very least decades to write such an account. Mark wrote his account between 59-71 years after Christ's birth. Since he was crucified at 33 years of age, the time passing from his death to Mark's account is a mere 38 years, and his was the original. The other 3 gospels depended much on Mark's account, while Matthew's and John's also included eye-witness interaction with the living Christ. Accounts of events, written by men, are human accounts. Every account of every event these proportions, by several eye-witnesses will always appear to clash, even if co-written with the God the Holy Spirit. Imagine Peter and John and Matthew in the mob at the execution, stretching and leaping to see their Lord being lead to Golgotha. They aren't in a single party and are struggling to see and hear everything going on. Their written accounts will not appear perfectly congruous.

 

In addition, if Rome could have discredited even one part of these accounts of Jesus' life, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, or the birth of his church, this man Jesus would have been forgotten. Rome knew very well how to crucify.

[iNow]

People can barely remember accurately what they had for breakfast yesterday. We're supposed to accept the divinity of Jesus based on xeroxed copies (what drunken monk scribes hand wrote based on what other drunk scribes before them wrote) of what people authored about Jesus' supposed life nearly two decades after said life ended? Seriously?

 

Religion preys on the stupid. Still no wonder the Eden story teaches that gaining knowledge is a sin.

[John Cuthber]

 

Nonsense. Any devoted follower of a figure of Jesus' stature, who would endeavor to write an account of his life, or of the birth of his church, would spend at the very least decades to write such an account.

 

...

Matthew's and John's also included eye-witness interaction with the living Christ.

 

...

Rome knew very well how to crucify.

Any competent devoted follower would have kept a diary at the time. transcribing it ant tidying it up for publication could be done in a few weeks.

Rome did know how to crucify, and they also knew why they did it.

If they just wanted someone dead they could take his head off with a sword.

But the point of crucifixion is not to offer a quick death but as long, drawn-out, and painful one as could easily be achieved.

 

So, since the point of some of the details of crucifixion was to keep the unfortunate victim alive so they could suffer, it's entirely plausible that sometimes they managed to keep him alive for a few days.

If they then mistakenly thought the unconscious man was dead they would cut him down and entomb him.

Hence an apparent resurrection.

 

It's notable that, even though this resurrection was the only thing that set the biblical Jesus apart from many other wannabee prophets at the time, there seems to be considerable disagreement of what day it happened.

You would think they got that important detail right but no, not even that.

They are not a very good record; certainly not fit to be used as proof of anything.

[Gilga-flesh]

LOL

 

Perhaps we should try to determine what unlikely sequence of events would lead people to witness the Aztec skeletal butterfly Goddess coming down to Earth, Hercule to perform his miracles or Zeus appearing in bedchambers of lonely women!

 

So Maria claims that, when she was all alone, Jesus appeared in front of her and then disappeared again. Then later some other people totally saw him too. Ok sure. So how is this different from people seeing Elvis after HE died?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but psychosis and imagination are not recent inventions. And I'm being generous in assuming there even was a Jesus to begin with, or a Maria for that matter, rather than some amalgamation or complete fantasy.

[B. John Jones]

Any competent devoted follower would have kept a diary at the time. transcribing it ant tidying it up for publication could be done in a few weeks.

 

What you just said is that competency requires 1) haste, 2) polished scholarship, 3) self-promotion. If I lived during Jesus' life on earth, I would have nothing to do with pen and paper until after his ascent. You misunderstand who he is.

 

Rome did know how to crucify, and they also knew why they did it.

 

Yes, they attacked Christ through the time of Constantine, who epitomized the mantra, "If you can't beat them, counterfeit them."

 

If they just wanted someone dead they could take his head off with a sword.

 

Again, you misunderstand because you've not given care to the text. Christ always sought escape from the masses from the very close of his very first Sermon, masses growing numerously by the day. If any Roman soldier so much as laid a hand on him there would have been horrific riots. His arrest depended on betrayal by a close friend.

 

But the point of crucifixion is not to offer a quick death but as long, drawn-out, and painful one as could easily be achieved.

 

The price God required of his Son, the penalty paid for all human sin.

 

So, since the point of some of the details of crucifixion was to keep the unfortunate victim alive so they could suffer, it's entirely plausible that sometimes they managed to keep him alive for a few days.

If they then mistakenly thought the unconscious man was dead they would cut him down and entomb him.

Hence an apparent resurrection.

 

When a person is pierced in their side, and water and blood flow, as in Jesus' case, he is indeed dead.

 

It's notable that, even though this resurrection was the only thing that set the biblical Jesus apart from many other wannabee prophets at the time, there seems to be considerable disagreement of what day it happened.

 

Perhaps notable, but not of much force in your argument. It should be expected that opinions would clash since local calendars were not always in sync with the Julian Calendar, nor with one another, not to mention the transitions of calendars that followed.

People can barely remember accurately what they had for breakfast yesterday.

 

Please, allow me to interject: "Today, people can barely remember accurately what they had for breakfast." We all know society has changed. Most histories, and events of the day, were secure in the minds of folks in ancient days. It's very sad that people are so shallow today that in just a few generations people will actually believe that it has always been a fast-paced electronic society.

 

We're supposed to accept the divinity of Jesus based on xeroxed copies (what drunken monk scribes hand wrote based on what other drunk scribes before them wrote) of what people authored about Jesus' supposed life nearly two decades after said life ended? Seriously?

 

It should frighten you to assume so much without shame.

 

Religion preys on the stupid. Still no wonder the Eden story teaches that gaining knowledge is a sin.

 

Very uninformed induction. The Eden story begins the history of a fallen world, due to human pride. Adam and Eve were forbidden the fruit from the tree of knowledge, of one kind, of the knowledge of good and evil. People reject Christ because they are not content with just good. They prefer good, with evil. As for those who are his, our portion will always be with Him.

Edited January 25, 2016 by B. John Jones

[John Cuthber]

So you think Christ was so important that the best thing to do was not bother to document His life.

I wonder if anyone else sees that as plausible.

 

"Yes, they attacked Christ through the time of Constantine, who epitomized the mantra, "If you can't beat them, counterfeit them.""

Oh come off it; the crucified run-of-the -mill thieves too. They crucified people because it's really really nasty- it doesn't kill them quickly.

 

"Again, you misunderstand because you've not given care to the text. Christ always sought escape from the masses from the very close of his very first Sermon, masses growing numerously by the day. If any Roman soldier so much as laid a hand on him there would have been horrific riots. His arrest depended on betrayal by a close friend."

Bollocks.

After the arrest and trial they could have cut His head off. They crucified Him because they wanted Him to suffer.

 

"The price God required of his Son, the penalty paid for all human sin."
Someone already made the comment elsewhere about telling child services.

It's still a valid point.

That's not what loving Fathers do.

 

"When a person is pierced in their side, and water and blood flow, as in Jesus' case, he is indeed dead."

 

According to one biassed witness, who know what the significance of that claim would be.

And it's not even true from a medical standpoint.

 

"Perhaps notable, but not of much force in your argument. It should be expected that opinions would clash since local calendars were not always in sync with the Julian Calendar, nor with one another, not to mention the transitions of calendars that followed."

 

FFS! who doesn't know if it's the Sabbath? All the shops are shut. (And there's the minor matter of getting stoned to death for not keeping it)

No subsequent change in the calendar would have explained why they didn't agree at the time.

 

Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember what life was like before the internet- and I couldn't remember what I'd had for my damned breakfast then either- so that part of your post is dross too.

 

"It should frighten you to assume so much without shame."

It's not an assumption; we have evidence- we have the books- and they don't tally- just like bad copies.

"The Eden story begins the history of a fallen world, due to human pride. "

No it fell because God wanted it to because He is evil.

That's why He put the serpent in there (either directly or through an agent - perhaps in order to maintain what would be called "plausible denial" if He did it today.)

He made sure the whole system was going to go tits up from the outset.

 

If this

"People reject Christ because they are not content with just good. They prefer good, with evil"

was true then you would need to work out how that's the case. Here's a clue "in His image".