This quote from the Qur'an encourages violence

[Green_Lantern]

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Oh, wait that's from Jesus in the New Testament. Most Christians would explain:"What he meant was..." Yet with Muslims and the Qur'an the anti-Muslim crowd assumes everything Muhammad said must be taken literally.

Muhammad didn't say anything Paul didn't say in his epistles even telling women to cover their hair.

[cleveramerican]

1. If he was burning bibles it wouldn't have even been covered at all.

[Warpy]

2. You're kidding, right?

Pox News and CBN would have been all over it and the uproar they started would soon infect the whole MSM.

[cleveramerican]

4. I disagree

We have elevated this pitiful little hate-monger and we must share some responsibility for it.

[Dorian Gray]

71. Pretty much

our media and our interest in this has made this all worse.

[cleanhippie]

15. Seriously?

Had his rhetoric been the same and the only difference was that "koran" was replaced with "bible", the result would have been the same, maybe even worse.


get real.

[Abq_Sarah]

24. I doubt there would be rioting

If he were burning a bible.

[cleanhippie]

67. Not in the Middle East, but maybe here at home....

Maybe "riot" is a bot of an overstatement, but it certainly would have caused an uproar.

[bighart]

30. So where would there be riots in the streets and people being killed

if your scenario were the case? I don't recall how may people were killed by Christians over the crucifix in a jar of urine deal, please remind me.

[cleanhippie]

68. Where did I say that there would be?

I didn't.

[bighart]

79. Seems to me you did,

"Had his rhetoric been the same and the only difference was that "koran" was replaced with "bible", the result would have been the same, maybe even worse."

[cleanhippie]

85. Well, I guess that much like the bible/koran/etc., its open to interpretation

[jwirr]

3. Qu'ran? If I remember my Bible quotes that is from the mouth of Jesus.

[Green_Lantern]

6. I know...read my comment..

It was tongue in cheek.

[Bill McBlueState]

7. I've found that it helps to read the whole post,

then think for a minute before responding.

[jdlh8894]

9. Chapter and verse,please.

And since when was that book of stories taken literally on DU?

[K8-EEE]

5. Just curious, where did Paul say the hair cover thing?

I looked once and couldn't find it.

[jberryhill]

8. The Sorry State Of Bible Education In the US

1 Cor 11:6

6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

[texastoast]

10. Or will she burn in hell?

For having short hair?

Probably.

Paul was such a charmer.

[Green_Lantern]

16. I don't think he demanded it with fear of punishment..

This epistle was written to the Greek Christians and requiring women to cover their hair during worship was done as a symbol of the monotheism practiced by Jews. Greek pagan women let their hair flow during worship.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/hairstyles.stm

[jberryhill]

26. It says during prayer, but here's the catch....

Now, elsewhere, doesn't Paul say this:

1 Thessalonians 5:16-`8

16Be joyful always; 17pray continually; 18give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.

---

So if women are to cover their heads during prayer, and everyone is to "pray continually", perhaps you might tell us when women are supposed to cover their heads, eh?

But, to make sure I understand you, anything in I or II Corinthians applies only to Greek Christians at a particular time. Is that correct?

[Green_Lantern]

41. ...

anything in I or II Corinthians applies only to Greek Christians at a particular time. Is that correct?

No...I didn't say that. I don't really think it was meant as some dogmatic rule book but as a way to show Christians how to coexist with others in the nations they lived in.


The statements in Thessalonians and Corinthians aren't contradictory and have nothing to do with morality.

[Cherchez la Femme]

95. Greek women

especially the higher-classed

were most often depicted in art as wearing both a head scarf/covering AND a veil.

[Green_Lantern]

101. I doubt they wore them in the temples of Corinth...

Who were devoted to Aphrodite. Temple prostitutes likely didn't cover up.

[Cherchez la Femme]

103. Are you calling upper class Greek women Prostitutes??

In any case they wore their head veil and the veil covering their faces all over their community & country,
however I am not acquainted with the precise details of what the rules were regarding head & facial coverings in terms of ANY of the many God/desses temples.

[Green_Lantern]

112. no...wasn't calling Greek women prostitutes lol...

I was talking about the women who were used in rituals at temples to Aphrodite.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. I can't stand Paul.

He perverted the whole message that Jesus delivered, in my opinion.

[jberryhill]

32. Well, Consider What Paul's Original Job Was.....

It seems he succeeded.

[Blue_In_AK]

35. Indeed.

One thing I've noticed about fundamentalist churches over the years is that they seem to put a lot more emphasis on Paul's letters than they do on the Gospels.

[Green_Lantern]

42. I don't think he perverted Christ's message at all...

His epistles were written as a response to letters from the various churches. You need to understand these converts weren't blank slates they had cultures and issues that were each unique.

The problem with Paul is when people read Paul as if he is a 20th century American.

[TexasObserver]

54. Paul completely perverted the message of Jesus.

He created a monstrosity. If people really want to follow Jesus, they could begin by tearing off from the Bible everything after the first four books of the New Testament. Between Paul and Revelations, there's a lot of bad bullshit in the books which follow the first four books.

[Green_Lantern]

56. give me an example of Paul contradicting Jesus

You criticize Christians for dogmatically following religion and then expect followers Jesus to follow your commands. Ironic.

[TexasObserver]

61. No.

If you have read what Jesus said and what Paul said, you would know that Paul added numerous things that Jesus never addressed. Like you, Paul thought it was ok for him to "explain" what Jesus meant, in terms Jesus never used.

You need to spend more time reading the New Testament and less time trying to represent what it says.

[Green_Lantern]

62. still no answer...if it was that obvious you would've given me an

Example.

[TexasObserver]

64. My answer is: go read what Jesus and Paul said and see for yourself.

Stop repeating things someone told you and actually read what Jesus said.

It's not the same as what Paul said.

Like many who claim to follow Jesus but don't, you love to argue about your beliefs but won't accept that many of your beliefs have absolutely no basis in anything Jesus said. The Pope, for example. The entire structure of the Catholic church, for example. The whole thing making Mary an icon. All of that is found nowhere in the teachings of Jesus, but they're the centerpieces of your beliefs.

[Green_Lantern]

65. thanks oh wise one...yes you're the only person to tell a Catholic

"That's not in the Bible". So Jesus started a church and expected no leadership to be passed on when the Apostles died? Which part of the Bible says that?

[trotsky]

80. Paul said he personally met Jesus.

Have you?

Why should we take your word over his?

[Cherchez la Femme]

82. Oh yeah? Where?

& don't even try 'the road to Damascus' because that in no way satisfies any definition of "met"

[trotsky]

87. What?

Who are you to arbitrarily declare what "met" means? Paul claimed he met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Are you saying he was wrong? Can you prove that?

[Cherchez la Femme]

92. Baloney

Following your comments, you're obviously using "met" as to have especial knowledge after having met someone personally -- i.e. having more insight or knowledge about a person because of said "meeting"
ya know, shaking hands, sitting down, having a(t least one) conversation with?

To expand a bit:
Your contention was "Paul said he personally met Jesus",
then you imply that this so-called "meeting" :eyes: was in-depth, at least as to Paul having more of an insight into Jesus & what He said and what His actions were over anybody else that didn't "meet" Him.

"Meeting" Jesus, to Saul, was being stuck blind on the road to Damascus, then hearing a disembodied (this was post crucifixion, remember?) voice from the sky say: 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'.
And there was no Pentecostal moment there, as Jesus appeared among the Apostles... nor was there a St. Thomas flesh-probing;

just the voice, after being struck blind.


That is the extent of their "meeting".


That's "met"?! Highly disingenuous.

[trotsky]

93. I am constantly amused at how desperately Christians try...

to completely disown the guy who truly founded and spread their religion. You would have been nothing but an also-ran desert cult if it wasn't for him.

You can't get rid of him, no matter how hard you try. He had far more of a *personal relationship* with Jesus, if the bible is to be believed (and you haven't given any reason why it shouldn't), than you or nearly any other Christian in history.

[Cherchez la Femme]

94. Straw man

Who said they 'were trying to get rid of him (Paul)'? Certainly not me!
What Christian thinks they can actually 'get rid of' Paul??

Not a very good try at deflection,
nor did you make one single comment regarding the refutation of your 'argument'



Edit: Spelling mistake.

Also, in previous post, should have read: "STRUCK blind on the road to Damascus"

Apologies.

[trotsky]

96. That's exactly what you're trying to do.

No sense in denying it. But considering I had no "argument" that you think you refuted, I'm really not sure what direction you're trying to take this in now. I said that Paul claimed he met Jesus. I asked you for proof to the contrary - but you have none, instead pulling out a red herring over the definition of the word "met."

The #1 definition of "meet" at dictionary.com is to come upon; come into the presence of; encounter.

Tell me why the biblical account of Paul meeting Jesus doesn't come under that definition. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

[Cherchez la Femme]

97. "Meet" denotes Interaction

And no, disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make one's arguments of straw. (What a high opinion you have of your "arguments"!)

Never did I, or anyone else I noted on this thread, argue to you that Paul could --in any way-- be 'gotten rid of'.

HOW could that even be possible? He's all through the NT.

What a curious, binary world you live in.

[trotsky]

99. So you can't dispute the definition.

I didn't think you could.

[Cherchez la Femme]

100. Your reading comprehension skills are non-existent

but seeing your interpretations of not only the posts here but of the Bible itself, that came as anything but a surprise.

I already refuted it, and long ago. How you can possibly ignore that speaks volumes for your agenda and tactics.

I'm done 'debating' with you if you can't respond within a basis of reality -- you know, what was actually written.

[trotsky]

106. You may attack me all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

You have failed in every attempt to dispute anything I've said. The person who I initially responded to on this subthread said to just rip out everything after the gospels. If that's not getting rid of Paul, I don't know what is. And yeah, by any definition of "meet" in the religious sense, Paul met Jesus. Deal with it.

[Cherchez la Femme]

115. What a very strange definition of Fail you have

I already quoted 1 Cor. 15, which you 'Paul met Jesus' advocates obviously somehow forgot to add into your posts contending the reality of said "meeting";

a passage which, strangely enough, has absolutely nothing to say about Paul

nor the road to Damascus

and only mentions Christ in a totally different subject.



Somebody sure needs to deal with something!

[trotsky]

118. You're getting more and more unstable here but maybe you can answer this one question:

If Paul didn't meet Jesus, who spoke to him on the road to Damascus?

(BTW, the verses in question here are I Corinthians 15:8-9 and Acts 9:5.) I am really, really curious how Paul & Jesus had a conversation without "meeting." Did they use Skype? Although technically that's meeting someone too.

[Cherchez la Femme]

123. Unstable?!

:rofl: So :sarcasm: is the new Unstable?!
Hey look! A new definition!! Who'd 'a thunk?

You're good, you're really good!
A prime example of Christian kindness & charity, you are! :eyes:


As for your newly added Acts 9:5

You know, where Saul was struck blind and couldn't see any thing much less anybody? And, yet again, when the people who were with him couldn't see a thing?
(When he said "Who art thou, Lord?" he was already struck blind! --how many times have I said this now in this discussion??)

"And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

that is yet another rehashing of the tale regarding the Road to Damascus; one which unsurprisingly adds nothing new!
(Well, other than 'kicking against pricks', which I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot-pole -- joke, don't cry)


According to you, always and forever, hearing a disembodied voice denotes "meeting"!


Look, let's face it: Saul/Paul contended he "met" Christ because it gave him even more authority over all the widespread Christian churches.
One would think Christ taking His time & effort to strike Saul blind, getting the apostles to accept this once anathemic guy, then compassionately healing his blindness would denote sufficient attention by the Christ to satisfy anyone; but noooooooooo...
Paul just wanted to tell everyone what to do exactly as he did to the Hebrew populace in his position of power in the Sanhedrin (including minor, unimportant social laws which Jesus never insisted upon, never even bothered to mention; among many others: women covering their hair just as the Jewish women did and of course women just shutting up and deferring in all things to the man! --damn uppity new-Christian women! Martha! Mary -- ALL you Mary's, including Christ's own mom! Back in the kitchen & shaddap! And BTW your Gospels of Christ are an affront to men. Fageddaboudit!).
And, really, forget about what Christ actually preached -- it's Paul's interpretation of and expounding upon that REALLY mattered!
This guy who never even heard Jesus Preach! :eyes:


This is getting way too repetitious.
And --believe it or not-- I really don't enjoy knocking your beliefs, even though you keep insisting & insisting & insisting that everything is oh so true and real without an ounce of actual scriptural proof

other than your personal faith alone.

So here's the deal: unless you can come up with a scriptural passage that talks about Saul actually "meeting"
--in the definitive sense--

even the two just shaking hands!
(although heaven knows how that gives Saul a better insight to Christ over anyone else)


I'm not going to waste any more of my time refuting your repetitious, circular, ridiculous, unscriptural claims.

[trotsky]

127. Yes, unstable.

As evidenced by your increasingly shrill and desperate posts. I'm glad you're giving up - this was getting dangerous for you.

[Cherchez la Femme]

128. You are not living in reality

Desperate and dangerous for me? Because you couldn't point out any scripture that backed your claim of "met"?

& "Shrill" huh? Aw c'mon -- I just KNOW you wanted to say 'Bitchy'.
Still, wow, misogyny from a Fundie Christian.
Imagine that!


Keep reaching, you Compassionate Christian you. Keep mistaking :sarcasm: (and laughing at you) for "desperate, dangerous, & shrill".
--Love thy neighbor -- but only next-door and only if they're your denomination.
--Do Unto Others Before They Do Unto You.

Yep, thou art a real prince :rofl:
yet not quite the son & heir of the Prince of Peace;
i.e. typical Christian.

[trotsky]

129. Not in your "reality," that's for sure.

I thought you weren't speaking to me anymore? Guess you just can't quit me, so humiliated after losing this discussion.

[Green_Lantern]

102. no, Paul said he saw the resurrected Christ in 1 Cor. 15....

That's his account of it.

The account of Paul's conversion in Acts you quoted is other men who were with Paul describing what they saw.

[Cherchez la Femme]

104. Huh?

1 Cor. 15
15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

--New International Version


King James Version:
15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.


I don't see the Latin Vulgate or the Douay Reims in my bible websites, sorry can't give you the Catholic Version.


As for the other men who were with Saul on the Damascus Road -- did they actually SEE Him or just hear the 'Why do you persecute me' line?


Edit: Here are the verses, Acts 9:3-9 (emphasis mine)

As he (Saul - my addition) neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

– Acts 9:3-9, New International Version

Point me to the Chapter & Verse where Saul/Paul (depending on what day) says he "met" (not even "saw", not simply 'encountered'; which is much more correct) Jesus.

[trotsky]

108. Christians themselves believe Paul met Jesus.

You'd better go correct them all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jan/05/christianity-acts-apostles
"But suddenly, as he is on his way to Damascus to beat up the Christians there, he meets Jesus."
"In 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, Paul claims that his meeting with Jesus belongs in the list of "resurrection" stories. He is aware that it is much later than all the others, but he is sure that is a physical meeting with the historical Jesus."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_apostle_Paul_meet_Jesus
Q: Did the apostle Paul meet Jesus?
A: Yes. On the Damascus road. This is recorded in Acts9:1-7.

http://openlibrary.org/books/OL4107996M/Paul_meets_Jesus
Paul meets Jesus by Jenny Robertson

http://www.anabaptists.org/clp/youth/10-405.html
Paul Meets Jesus

http://www.christianstandard.com/sundayschool.asp?id=106
Paul Meets the Lord

...and approximately 274,000 other Google search results. Get busy. You have a lot of Christians to inform of their error.

[Cherchez la Femme]

109. Oh, fine; as long as seemingly infallible Christians believe it

and not all Catholic, of course
(as though the latter would catch infallibility --by osmosis perhaps?-- from the Pope)

and even though it's not actually anywhere in the Bible
I stand corrected, I guess

:sarcasm:

[trotsky]

110. Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize you yourself were one of those infallible Christians.

In which case you'd better set all those other folks straight right away!

[Cherchez la Femme]

116. I'm neither

the latter in a strict sense -- I would never deny Jesus and (only!) his words,

but all these ...undiscerning... Professional Christians have long ago caused me to lose my religion
as it stands to organized Christian religion.


However, I can read,
and negate what people read into texts, including denoting certain meanings when not actually spelled out,

and doing this probably because of wishful thinking, to better fit their religious dogma

... All praise the Bible who's every word is correct & absolute! :crazy:

[trotsky]

117. Ah, but you read the bible perfectly. Obviously.

Glad that's settled. When are you going to get around to showing all the other Christians on the planet they're wrong?

[Cherchez la Femme]

120. Aw, should I just be "taught" by you?

Forget my own discernment -- give that "ignorant" crap all up!

trotsky is right even though his interpretations
--gasp! What sacrilege!:
his absolute Biblical knowledge and above all Truth(iness)--
aren't backed up by the actual scriptures themselves?

You've won. You've rechurched me!

Now where is the nearest Planned Parenthood so I can join in the picketing?
Ya know, forget women's rights -- that's SO unBiblical!

...and as for teh gays!!!....

[trotsky]

121. I'm just asking why you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Since you don't have an answer for that, you resort to more attacks on me.

That tells me all I need to know.

[Cherchez la Femme]

124. Yet YOU are right and everyone else is wrong.

Which is why you never got an answer.

Ridiculous to even bother to respond to a hypocritical "question" such as that.

[trotsky]

126. Never said that.

You, however, did. Nice try at evading, but everything is documented in this thread. Awesome!

[Cherchez la Femme]

130. Yes, the documentation is awesome

And this is a debate board where people post, y'know, opinions?
Not an infallible postings board.

If you can't take the heat...

[trotsky]

131. You're the one who pulled a Palin and quit.

Supposedly.

[Cherchez la Femme]

132. Quit what?

And "pulled a Palin"??
So you're now using outright ad hominem attacks, instead of just implying them, as is your usual wont?
My my, we are getting desperate, aren't we? :rofl:

[trotsky]

133. Desperate for what?

You're the one who gave up. You stopped trying to defend your claim, and instead focused on the red herring of picking an arbitrarily extremely narrow definition of "meet" (namely to physically be in proximity to AND be able to visibly see someone). No doubt recognizing the inherent weakness of such a lame argument, you began attacking me in order to distract from it.

BTW, "pulled a Palin" isn't an ad hom, it's just another way of saying you quit. Which you did, saying you weren't going to respond to me anymore, but which you continue to do, strangely enough.

[Cherchez la Femme]

134. You compare me to Palin, that's an ad hominem

in my book.

I don't know how much more I could 'defend my claim' as, having already posted here the applicable scriptures and analyzing them, to continue on would only be not only repetitive but tedious I dare say.

But, seeing as you simply LOVE having the last word, go ahead, reply to this post!
This 'conversation' is getting nowhere fast.

Go ahead -- last word will (unless you come up with more insults) be alll yours!

[trotsky]

135. Well thanks, since you interjected yourself in the subthread, it is only fair.

If I may summarize with this platform you have so graciously given me:

1) We have established A) that you consider yourself the sole authority on how Paul interacted with Jesus, based on your unquestionably superior biblical interpretation skills, and B) that all other Christians (or anyone else, for that matter) who think otherwise are clearly and undeniably wrong.

2) We have further established that to "meet" can ONLY mean to come physically face-to-face with, perhaps with physical contact, and must also include visual confirmation by both parties. This unfortunately means that blind people can never meet anyone else, but such is life when we must live by your imperious pronouncements.

Based upon those "facts" you arbitrarily declared, clearly you are correct and I concede defeat. Peace to you, because you obviously need it.

[Green_Lantern]

113. church infallibility is Biblical...thinking it applies to only one

Bishop probably isn't...I'm kind of on the fence on this.

[Cherchez la Femme]

119. Could you expound on that please?

I'm unsure of what you exactly are saying...

Thanks! :hi:

[Green_Lantern]

122. okay I guess what I'm saying is the Church has the power

To define doctrines of faith. Catholics believe only the Church in Rome has this power.

Eastern Orthodox believe all of the Churches and their Bishop have that power.

[Cherchez la Femme]

125. Thanks for the response

You know, both Eastern Orthodox churches & their Bishops AND 'the Pope' (whichever 'approved' one is applicable) have all been wrong at one time or another and have admitted so, offering/issuing apologies &/or retractions

so I really wonder which is the infallible declaration
the one which came first or the last one on the subject?

I guess, esp. looking at the furor over Vatican II, it's both

depending on what side you're on! :)

[Green_Lantern]

136. I don't think the Eastern Orthodox church really has an equivalent

Of infallibility. They just believe the bishops in consensus have the authority to define and maintain church doctrine.

Infallibility of the Pope actually handcuffs church leadership because each Pope is bound to the pronouncements of previous Popes.

[Green_Lantern]

111. 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8

[TexasObserver]

34. Paul was talking about the terrible hair cutting salons back then.

When a woman gets a bad haircut, she should cover it.

That's all he was saying, right?





It's hilarious the way so many churches in America which bear the name "Christian" blow off specific instructions that appear one place, but enforce the verse sitting right next to it. If they're enforcing the rule in Leviticus about homosexuality, they're ignoring the rules in the same book against eating shrimp or having women around during their period. They may quote Paul left and right, but explain away the whole "women covering their heads" or "better to marry than to burn" edicts.

When they start stoning to death their disrespectful kids, we'll know they're serious about Old School religion.

[Green_Lantern]

45. Those fire and brimstone churches are stuck in the OT...

Ironically they quote Scripture thinking it enforces the image of a wrathful God yet tell us he loves us.

[Green_Lantern]

11. 1 Corinthians 11

nt

[K8-EEE]

23. Oh thanks nt

[TexasObserver]

40. Paul WAS a wolf in sheep's clothing which Jesus warned about.

The son of bitch hijacked the movement and franchised it. The result bore little resemblance to the teachings of the man they claimed to follow, and that has been the story of Christianity.

The Apostles resented Mary Magdalene because Jesus loved her best, and because she understood his teachings best. They came from an era that treated women like second class citizens, and as soon as Jesus was gone, they returned to those behaviors and made it part of their new religion.

[Green_Lantern]

46. that's completely untrue...

Who said the Apostles resented Mary Magdalene? That's certainly not evident in the Bible. The Bible doesn't portray her in a bad light by any means.

Also where did you get that the Apostles treated women differently than Jesus?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cherchez la Femme]

81. Pick up a few books on

how the Bible, as we know it today, was actually compiled.
While you wait for them to arrive, start a websearch on oh... let's start with Gnostics & the early church.

You will be astonished;
and since it was the R.C. Church who did said compiling, try not to be surprised that your Catholic education & experiences never addressed any of this.

---From another brought-up, churched, 'educated' Catholic.

[smalll]

12. Do you really want to get started on this?

Yes, the context in this case is that he comes to bring a sword -- between parents and children, sisters and brothers, etc. -- in the sense of those who chose to follow him and those who don't. And he isn't advocating killing one's unbelieving relatives. It's clearly figurative speech.

Look, the most violent Jesus of the New Testament ever got was to throw about some money-lenders' tables in a temple. For which act he felt sorry for, and repented of soon thereafter. Mohammed of the Koran leads his people again and again into actual battle. He issues death sentences upon people.

I'm NOT a Christian. But if you want to go verse for verse, NT vs. the Koran, in a side-by-side comparison, Christianty will CLEARLY win the "religion of peace" stakes. No contest.

One reason why, I've recently thought of: Jesus lived at the height of the Roman Empire. He lived in a world empire, in a world order that had come to power and which was perpetuated by great force and violence. His religion of peace, forgiveness and uncomplaining matryrdom was a direct challenge to the murder upon which that world's order was based.

Mohammed, on the other hand, lived in a chaotic, pagan Arabia -- tribe against tribe, nomad against nomad, with towns and merchants as the prey of the bedouins when each tribe wasn't fighting each other. The desert, as it were, was a jungle. Mohammed lived in a violent, chaotic world. A world WITHOUT order. HE challenged that chaos by uniting people around a clear monotheism -- a "submission" to ONE God -- and a submission to himself as leader. He was a political leader as well as a religious one. Did his unification improve the life of the Arabians? Of course so, of course it was an advance. But he did use violence to defeat chaos. Jesus rejected the violence upon which the Roman order was based.

[cleanhippie]

17. Ahh, the old "you are not taking it in context" argument.

How expected.

[Igel]

98. Obviously expected.

Why limit it at the medieval verse boundaries?

Ah, because we hunger to return to the middle ages. I see.

The same is done with the Koran by people who like to distort it. One problem is that the Koran doesn't always form nice, neat narratives. Not the right style. Not composed the same way, not edited the same way. However, even in reasonable, if unfriendly, Koranic exegesis you still have to take into account context. To do otherwise is pointless if, as both sets of believers insist, authorial intent matters.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Where in the NT does it say that Jesus repented for throwing the money changers out of the Temple?

[smalll]

37. Looks like I was wrong -- I can't find him repenting for it!

/nt

[Uncle Joe]

44. That's cool, I never blamed him for not repenting.

My belief has always been, that was the action; which produced the true motivation; which led to his crucifixion.

The powers that be have never enjoyed being separated from the money, whether it was the Temple, aka; government of that day from the money-changers/businessmen or today's government from their lobbyists, aka; legalized bribers.

[jberryhill]

29. Why Does Paul Refer To Jephtheh The Gileadite As A Hero In Hebrews?

I'm all ears.

----
And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.
----

You are aware of Jephthah the Gileadite's particular story, yes?

Paul endorses him as a hero of faith.

But if we are going to chuck the entire OT, it's something of a mystery why Christians keep it around.

I also suppose we need to jettison the juicer bits of the The Revelation of John, yes?

[smalll]

39. Well yes, I would rest on the OT/NT distinction.

So does that make Judaism violent? Not really; the Torah has been expanded by the Talmud, which as far as I know doesn't call for Jews to be slaughtering people willy-nilly with jawbones of asses and what have you. The Koran, at the same time, has been expanded on by the Hadith -- which is even more pro-violence than the Koran.

The Revelation of John? I don't think that calls on human beings to do violence for God; instead it describes the violence that God and the Devil and other non-human entities will do at the end of the world.

[Cherchez la Femme]

83. OMG have you READ the OT?

Not violent?! :choke:

This must be a joke, for it's simply too incredible to be taken in any way seriously...

[Green_Lantern]

47. this may come as a surprise to you but maybe Paul proclaimed

Those judges as heroes because he lived in a Jewish society that viewed them as heroes.

Americans consider Washington a hero yet he owned slaves so do we all condone slavery?

[dimbear]

72. Many of the Pauline letters are of questioned authorship

Scholars are practically unanimous that Hebrews is not written by Paul. Just saying.

[TexasObserver]

75. Indeed. A number of Biblical books were not written by their "author."

[Green_Lantern]

88. that's why I'm not a Bible literalist or read the Bible without at least..

Researching who wrote the books and the context of the time it was written.

That's why I don't believe anyone can judge Paul by today's standards.

[TexasObserver]

74. Interesting commentary.

[tridim]

13. Both books were written by humans.

[jdlh8894]

14. Aren't ALL books ???

[cleanhippie]

18. Common sense would have us think so.

But unfortunately, many disregard common sense when it comes to these books. Sad, very, very sad.

[Green_Lantern]

20. that's not true...

Show me any Christian who believes God physically wrote the Bible himself.

[K8-EEE]

25. He "breathed" it is what my fundy friend says

Which in her opinion is exactly the same as writing it himself aka "word of God" and perfect.

I asked -- were the editors who decided what was in and out also "breathed at?" She's like....I guess so!

Now what would have been impressive -- if God would have dictated one text in one language and one to another person in another language, and they would have been identical. THAT would have been a good God trick.

[Green_Lantern]

33. I'm betting she doesn't literally believe God breathes like a person..

And takes possession of people to make them write the Bible.

I'm Catholic so I don't believe in Bible literalism and that Christianity begins and ends with a book.

The Christian church existed for centuries before the Bible was written.

[K8-EEE]

36. Oh yes she does!! She's a literalist

And homeschools her kids to "truths" such as the Grand Canyon was made by Noah's flood and the world is 6,000 years old, on the basis that every single thing in the Bible is 100% true and written by God.

I also was raised Catholic (now ex-Catholic!) and frankly I didn't even know people thought like that until I met her and her friends.

[Green_Lantern]

49. she is probably in the minority but even a Catholic university..

Would probably reject her for ignorance of basic science. No offense to your friend but I think God wants us to learn and not bury our heads.

[cleanhippie]

70. I can't

But I can show many christians who think the bible was written by god through humans, which is the same thing.

[tridim]

22. Saying people should kill other people is not common sense.

Both books say innocent people deserve death, and claim it to be the word of god.

[Green_Lantern]

50. the Bible doesn't say innocent people deserve death...

It just doesn't say the Israelites were pacifists. But they would've been destroyed if they were.

[cleanhippie]

78. Are you kidding me? The bible is FULL of innocent people being killed.

[Green_Lantern]

89. so does US history...that doesn't mean it's saying innocent people

Deserve death. The Israelites probably did kill a lot of people but hell Anglo-Saxon culture wouldn't control Europe if they hadn't done the same thing.

[cleanhippie]

77. Did I say that?

Because I didn't.

[Green_Lantern]

19. that doesn't mean they don't contain sacred wisdom...

It doesn't mean God is nonexistent.

[Azooz]

86. The Quran could not have been written by humans

The Quran states often that it could not have been written by humans.

It states that if all humans united to write a single page like it they would fail.

The Quran states that it could not have been written by humans, and humans can not write anything like it if they tried.

I can not argue the point for it needs more Arabic than I have, I just mention what the Quran says about this subject.

[mcollins]

28. Full quote goes:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

The first important observation is to recognize that Jesus does not speak about "the sword", but about "a sword". Jesus is not a prophet of the sword. The sword of violence, force and war has no place in his message. What kind of sword is he talking about?

The above passage speaks about the consequence of being obedient to the command of Jesus that we are to preach his message. Some will listen and accept it but many will reject it and react violently.

We will be hated for the message of repentance that we have to bring. We will be hated because we call people from evil to light and because this message exposes their evil deeds.

For many it will mean that even our own family will turn against us.

What kind of sword? It is the sword of division that God's word brings. It is the division of truth from error, and the reaction of the darkness against the light. The sword that Jesus brings, is the sword that his followers have to suffer, a sword that is applied to them, not a sword that they wield against others.


This chapter tells of Jesus sending his disciples out to minister to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." ("Lost sheep" is a common Biblical metaphor for people who have "gone astray" in some way. "House of Israel" refers to the descendants of Israel, the Israelites). Specifically, he commanded his disciples to "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." These were all considered good acts, and according to Christians this exemplifies Jesus's message of peace, love, health, and life.

Starting in verse 13, Jesus then goes on to inform his disciples that they will not always be warmly received. He instructs them to depart from homes and cities that will not receive them. He then adds in verse 15, "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." According to Abrahamic tradition, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah had earlier been destroyed by God. As context for the "I bring a sword" quote, many Christians see this as an indication that God, rather than Christians, will be responsible for any punishment due those who reject Jesus's message.

Jesus then warned his disciples that they would encounter violent resistance on their ministry. In verse 16 he is quoted as saying (RSV), "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." Here, doves may be invocative of peace, although in the context of first-century Judaic culture it may have had a different meaning. In verse 21 Jesus is quoted as saying (KJV), "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." This is clearly an apocalyptic prediction, and related to the Septuagint, Micah 7:6, but Jesus does not express his views on the matter, other than saying "All men will hate you because of me" in verse 22. He then instructs his followers to flee to a different city when they are persecuted.

He then exhorts his disciples not to fear. He assures them that faithful proclamation of his message will have its rewards.

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 10:32-33, KJV)
Immediately thereafter Jesus makes the comment in question, verse 34, saying that he came not to bring peace, but the sword, followed by a direct quote of Micah 7:6 in verse 35-36.

[Cherchez la Femme]

84. A perfect definiton of Religion, is it not

this Matthew 10:34-39?

[naaman fletcher]

31. here's how i see it..

Both are stupid ancient myths that encourage violence. However, one group has decided to pretend that some of the worst stuff (like stoning) isn't there or is no longer operative.

I don't like being in the position of judging one group of people who believe in stupid myths over another, but hey, at least Christians don't practice slavery any more.

[Green_Lantern]

53. yeah sure Christians were the only ones to ever have slaves...

Most abolitionists in America were Christian...

No sense of history.

[naaman fletcher]

55. huh?

I said no such thing. I was saying it as a positive i.e we got rid of it, the muslims haven't.

[Green_Lantern]

58. sorry I thought you were being sarcastic...

Sorry.

[naaman fletcher]

60. no prob!

I am in Africa right now. Have been for the last three weeks. Let me tell you, slavery is alive in well here in the horn, and practice by muslims who take the koran literally.

[libodem]

38. Rock-a my soul

In the bossom of Abraham. We are all brothers and sisters with more in common than differences.

[Turborama]

59. We're all stardust

Literally.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245072385.html?from=storylhs

[zeemike]

43. I must point out that that quote is not a teaching but a prophisy

Of things to come....one that was spot on by the way.
We tend to forget that Jesus made a lot of predictions about the future and the later days.
You know like "there will be wars and rumors of wars....and because inequities abound the love of many will wax cold" All of these were about the later days.

[Taverner]

48. Jean Calvin, who's work is surreptitiously the real force behind Evangelicals said...

...that women should cover their heads, not speak, walk ten steps behind men, etc ....

[m00nbeam]

52. Don't you know that fundies pick and choose what passages

in the Bible to take literally?

[Fuzz]

57. Christian fundies also pick and choose passages from the koran to make islam look

more evil. Islamic fundies do the same.

If there was a god I'm sure it wouldn't be a happy entity at what it created.

[ZombieHorde]

107. If there is a god, it knew what its creation was going to be like even before is made anything.

If there is a god, all of this is intentional.

edit to add the letter k to one of my words

[Green_Lantern]

114. I'm in disagreement with that...

I don't think the creation aspect of God really has intentions.

[TexasObserver]

76. Yes. They will eat shrimp but whip out Leviticus when desired.

They will pray in public and forget that "go into your closet to pray" instruction by Jesus.

[Green_Lantern]

90. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with Christians....

I've been lucky enough to have had little experience with fundamentalists.

[TexasObserver]

63. You have represented well the attitude that Paul embraced.

Jesus must be very disappointed that so many who bandy about his name absorbed none of his teachings.

[Green_Lantern]

69. I'm not intolerant of anyone....the OP wasn't judging of Muslims...

I'm intolerant because I disagree with you I guess.

[JonLP24]

66. I was never a big bible reader

but does that contradict the "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing he said? Or in this case is he using sword as a metaphor? :shrug:

[TexasObserver]

73. It means whatever each reader thinks it means.

[Green_Lantern]

91. I think it was both...

But He only said this because Peter drew his sword to fight the men trying to arrest Jesus.

He was probably saying that if Peter prevented Jesus' crucifixion it'd end up coming back to haunt him. The consequences would be bad.

[frogmarch]

105. In the Book of Kells

(the Celtic illustrated manuscript of the Gospels), the word "gladium" (sword) was changed to "gaudium" (joy), so that the translation reads "I come not (only) to bring peace, but joy." Was the Celtic monks' word substitution a typo of sorts, or was it intentional?

"Joy" sounds more Jesuslike, but it doesn't jibe with the rest of the passage.

New American Standard Bible (NASB):

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Sword is certainly the appropriate word for that passage - not joy.