Comparing Christianity and Islam

[Kung Fu]

How about this from a commentary on Matthew 5:18?

Till all be fulfilled.--Literally, Till all things have come to pass. The words in the English version suggest an identity with the "fulfil" of Matthew 5:17, which is not found in the Greek. The same formula is used in the Greek of Matthew 24:34. The "all things" in both cases are the great facts of our Lord's life, death, resurrection, and the establishment of the kingdom of God. So taken, we find that the words do not assert, as at first they seem to do, the perpetual obligation even of the details of the Law, but the limit up to which the obligation was to last; and they are therefore not inconsistent with the words which speak of the system of the Law as a whole as "decaying and waxing old, and ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). The two "untils" have each of them their significance. Each "jot" or "tittle "must first complete its work; then, and not till then, will it pass away.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

This all just plain old confusing. English all of a sudden doesn't make any kind of sense. 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.

^Either they translated this incorrectly or it means that until heaven and earth disappear the Law will not change at least not until EVERYTHING is accomplished. Which is it?

 

[Damien50]

Can you reference this "new covenant"?

https://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html

 

[Damien50]

This all just plain old confusing. English all of a sudden doesn't make any kind of sense. 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.

^Either they translated this incorrectly or it means that until heaven and earth disappear the Law will not change at least not until EVERYTHING is accomplished. Which is it?

Context is what you are missing rather than improper translation or it meaning only what you think. Everything in regards to what in your opinion?

 

[Kung Fu]

https://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html

Colour me not surprised that this new covenant in regards to the gentiles for Christians comes from Paul. Sorry not buying it.

Also, this new covenant for the Israelites and the gentiles could have been Islam which resulted in a good number of Semites both Jews and Arabs, and gentiles converting to it when Muhammad(pbuh) came with his message.

 

[Kung Fu]

Context is what you are missing rather than improper translation or it meaning only what you think. Everything in regards to what in your opinion?

Okay if it's context I'm missing show me where Jesus ever says that with him the Law will change for the Israelites and that they no longer have to do things like eat kosher, can eat pork, and etc. Give anything on Jesus stating in some shape and or form that Israelites will no longer have to follow any of the laws brought by Moses(pbuh)?

Well everything to do with the story of Jesus. From his birth to his eventual return.

 

[Damien50]

Colour me not surprised that this new covenant in regards to the gentiles for Christians comes from Paul. Sorry not buying it.

Also, this new covenant for the Israelites and the gentiles could have been Islam which resulted in a good number of Semites both Jews and Arabs, and gentiles converting to it when Muhammad(pbuh) came with his message.

The new covenant comes from Jesus like 22:20.

 

[Damien50]

Okay if it's context I'm missing show me where Jesus ever says that with him the Law will change for the Israelites and that they no longer have to do things like eat kosher, can eat pork, and etc. Give anything on Jesus stating in some shape and or form that Israelites will no longer have to follow any of the laws brought by Moses(pbuh)?

Well everything to do with the story of Jesus. From his birth to his eventual return.

I'll answer you but in the mean time can you show verses that concur with your assessment that the law, emphasizing which laws would be great, won't change and a more verses supporting what everything refers to?

And if Jesus doesn't say something but is supported by other Scripture, will you consider it valid or dismiss cause Jesus didn't say it? I don't want to waste my time on a goose chase because the bible isn't answering got your specific search criteria.

 

[Kung Fu]

The new covenant comes from Jesus like 22:20.

I'm guessing you're referring to Luke. Where does Jesus say that in this new covenant that Israelites will no longer need to follow the revelations and laws given to Moses(pbuh)? Does Jesus go into detail what this new covenant is?

If Jesus is starting a new covenant why did he still follow the laws of Moses(pbuh) such as not eating pork?

 

[Damien50]

I'm guessing you're referring to Luke. Where does Jesus say that in this new covenant that Israelites will no longer need to follow the revelations and laws given to Moses(pbuh)? Does Jesus go into detail what this new covenant is?

If Jesus is starting a new covenant why did he still follow the laws of Moses(pbuh) such as not eating pork?

The new covenant is expounded on in that link I sent you. Everything doesn't have to be spoken by Jesus to be true. He followed the law to fulfill it and free us from it but this is also expounded upon in other areas of the bible by other people so take it or leave it. It's not how one properly divides the bible based on whether Jesus says something or not.

 

[Kung Fu]

I'll answer you but in the mean time can you show verses that concur with your assessment that the law, emphasizing which laws would be great, won't change and a more verses supporting what everything refers to?

Well we have discussed that knowing which laws are genuine and which are not is difficult due to interpolations and scribes and priests changing things for their betterment as for verses it's the one we're currently talking about.

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.

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.

Whosoever, therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Everything means everything at least that's what I take the word "everything" to mean.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Kung Fu

I won't interrupt too much other than to say that in my experience, there are two ways you can find something impossible to understand.

One is that the material is too complex or contradictory to make sense of.

The second occurs when an element of what someone bases their reasoning is something you hold to be fundamentally untrue.

I could not accept arguments based on flying pigs. In the case under discussion, the explanation of Jesus fulfilling the Law relies on the idea that he died as the Passover lamb (rejected by Islam).

To accept this, you would need up reason as a Christian, not a Muslim. This is where we hit the wall with one another in terms of explanations, and where something as clear as my nose (to me) becomes a confusing mystery to you.

 

[Kung Fu]

The new covenant is expounded on in that link I sent you. Everything doesn't have to be spoken by Jesus to be true. He followed the law to fulfill it and free us from it but this is also expounded upon in other areas of the bible by other people so take it or leave it. It's not how one properly divides the bible based on whether Jesus says something or not.

If the Bible is based on Jesus logically speaking it would have to be Jesus saying it for it to hold any kind of weight. He followed the law so everyone else wouldn't have too?

How does one properly divide the Bible then?

 

[Kung Fu]

@Kung Fu

I won't interrupt too much other than to say that in my experience, there are two ways you can find something impossible to understand.

One is that the material is too complex or contradictory to make sense of.

This pretty much explains it. At least for me. Prior to me being a Muslim I didn't understand Christianity and now that I'm a Muslim I still don't understand Christianity. I'll be honest the more interactions I have with Christians the more it seems like they have no idea what they're saying or understand remotely what they're saying. Seems like everyone is just as confused as me.

Regardless I still love Christians (excluding Zionist Christians) because I feel like in some way they want to worship One God but just don't really know how to go about it without getting the Trinity involved.

 

[Damien50]

If the Bible is based on Jesus logically speaking it would have to be Jesus saying it for it to hold any kind of weight. He followed the law so everyone else wouldn't have too?

How does one properly divide the Bible then?

I think it would be erroneous to say it's wholly based on Jesus but rather a multitude of themes involving God's interaction with God's creation.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-and-the-Law.html

I would say it's debatable how one should divide but I believe the most reliable method to be dispensationalism which @Red Sky at Morning have a brief preview of in an earlier post. During my time at church we were taught each book via general summaries based on the historical and doctrinal aspects of each book. From that point it was a matter of connecting dots, finding verses that correlated, and examining the meaning of verses. Starting from the beginning allowed a clearer path to the end.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

This pretty much explains it. At least for me. Prior to me being a Muslim I didn't understand Christianity and now that I'm a Muslim I still don't understand Christianity. I'll be honest the more interactions I have with Christians the more it seems like they have no idea what they're saying or understand remotely what they're saying. Seems like everyone is just as confused as me.

Regardless I still love Christians (excluding Zionist Christians) because I feel like in some way they want to worship One God but just don't really know how to go about it without getting the Trinity involved.

I can see your difficulties - it took me a long time to realise that in order to follow the logic of the Bible, you would need to accept the doctrines and descriptions of God it sets out. In rejecting them as inferior or incorrect, interpretation becomes something like trying to get into a house using your car keys ;-)

God bless.

 

[Kung Fu]

I can see your difficulties - it took me a long time to realise that in order to follow the logic of the Bible, you would need to accept the doctrines and descriptions of God it sets out. In rejecting them as inferior or incorrect, interpretation becomes something like trying to get into a house using your car keys ;-)

God bless.

Peace be upon you, Red.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

If anyone is interested, I understood the nature of faith better after I watched this scene, years ago.