mazaje:

The fact has been stated, stop playing lost yet again. Give your life to God.

Image123:
The fact has been stated, stop playing lost yet again. Give your life to God.

Give your life to Allah and accept Mohammed as his last messenger for your own good. . .Next!

mazaje:

The OT is a Jewish book and therefore the Jewish understanding of it should and must remain the only authoritative understanding of it. Again your analogy about the thesis falls here. . .The OT is originally a Jewish book not a christian book. . .The NT is originally a christian book yet we have muslims telling us things about the NT like Jesus not being crucified and the story of Mary for example and expecting us to believe it when their own tradition came many hundreds of years later. . .

I see your point, though if you reckon, the early Christians had Jewish scholars like Paul and teachers like Jesus who interpreted things (for all intents and purposes, it's just as well as any other Rabbi would have interpreted to write a Midrash). This was not at all a case of an outsider interpreting a Jewish book.

Oh well, to each their own

InesQor:

I see your point, though if you reckon, the early Christians had Jewish scholars like Paul and teachers like Jesus who interpreted things (for all intents and purposes, it's just as well as any other Rabbi would have interpreted to write a Midrash). This was not at all a case of an outsider interpreting a Jewish book.

Oh well, to each their own

Wrong.


There were numerous jewish scholars and councils before Jesus/Paul. The interpretations of Jesus/Paul were even taboo up till this day to Jews.

To claim christianity has some authority over Jewish scriptures is to say that islam also has an authority over some new testament stories of Jesus- especially where they say that Jesus wasnt crucified.

A slippery slope

InesQor:

I see your point, though if you reckon, the early Christians had Jewish scholars like Paul and teachers like Jesus who interpreted things (for all intents and purposes, it's just as well as any other Rabbi would have interpreted to write a Midrash). This was not at all a case of an outsider interpreting a Jewish book.

Oh well, to each their own

. . .

mazaje:

Give your life to Allah and accept Mohammed as his last messenger for your own good. . .Next!

give me one reason why you haven't heeded this advice and two reasons why i should?

Image123:
give me one reason why you haven't heeded this advice and two reasons why i should?

Because Jesus has never told me to give my life to him. . .If he wants me to give my life to him he should tell me himself after all he is the one that wants to be in a relationship with me according to you and others. . .

You need to accept Allah because his book that he revealed says that you will perish and suffer eternal torture if you don't and secondly because there is no god except Allah the creator of the universe. . .You need to obey him and serve him for your own good. . .

mazaje:

Because Jesus has never told me to give my life to him. . .If he wants me to give my life to him he should tell me himself after all he is the one that wants to be in a relationship with me according to you and others. . .

You need to accept Allah because his book that he revealed says that you will perish and suffer eternal torture if you don't and secondly because there is no god except Allah the creator of the universe. . .You need to obey him and serve him for your own good. . .

^^^

LOL Mazaje wants me to choke on breakfast

Edit: I guess the next question should be "Why isn't Mazaje a Muslim then"?

Nice thread, bros mazaje I hail.

@inesqor (the last truth bender )

Nwokem, surely you do realise the pressure was more on the early Christians who had the job of interpreting these old books to fit the story of the Jesus. Paul was the first yahoo yahoo guy ever, I nor trruss am at all.

Chrisbenogor: Nice thread, bros mazaje I hail.

@inesqor (the last truth bender )

Nwokem, surely you do realise the pressure was more on the early Christians who had the job of interpreting these old books to fit the story of the Jesus. Paul was the first yahoo yahoo guy ever, I nor trruss am at all.

lol

Chrisbenogor: Nice thread, bros mazaje I hail.

@inesqor (the last truth bender )

You and DeepSight and your non-sequiturs. If you have a worthwhile objection why not provide it?

InesQor:

You and DeepSight and your non-sequiturs. If you have a worthwhile objection why not provide it?

lol...are you now Ihedinobi? Ignoring/denying objections and rebuttals to your position?

Jews wrote and interpreted the old testaments thousands of years before christians - what goves christianity then the right to have any authority on the old testament?

mazaje:

Because Jesus has never told me to give my life to him. . .If he wants me to give my life to him he should tell me himself after all he is the one that wants to be in a relationship with me according to you and others. . .

You need to accept Allah because his book that he revealed says that you will perish and suffer eternal torture if you don't and secondly because there is no god except Allah the creator of the universe. . .You need to obey him and serve him for your own good. . .

you skipped my first question.

Image123:
give me one reason why you haven't heeded this advice and two reasons why i should?

InesQor:

I see your point, though if you reckon, the early Christians had Jewish scholars like Paul and teachers like Jesus who interpreted things (for all intents and purposes, it's just as well as any other Rabbi would have interpreted to write a Midrash). This was not at all a case of an outsider interpreting a Jewish book.

Oh well, to each their own

Good.

Are they not Jews? Yes they are, so, what is their crying all about sef?

Are they only equating christianity with what they see in Nigeria? Na wao!

What of Jews that are christians, what will they say?
Rubbish!

For you:

Logicboy03:

Wrong.


There were numerous jewish scholars and councils before Jesus/Paul. The interpretations of Jesus/Paul were even taboo up till this day to Jews.


A slippery slope

If it is Judaism that meets your fancy become one, if it is Islam, its your call, or, is it christianity? Use your freedom.

Why are you taking panadol for (my) other peoples headech?
*sigh*

John 4:22
"Salvation originate with the Jews".
...................
And Jesus was a Jew. Paul was a Jew. QED.

My choice to chose. No?

Logicboy03:

To claim christianity has some authority over Jewish scriptures is to say that islam also has an authority over some new testament stories of Jesus- especially where they say that Jesus wasnt crucified.

Islam ke?
Are they Jews?

If they are, good for them, still my choice to chose. No?

Lol.

Taking panadol for my headech here, are you?
Smh for YOU.

Chrisbenogor: Nice thread, bros mazaje I hail.

@inesqor (the last truth bender )

Nwokem, surely you do realise the pressure was more on the early Christians who had the job of interpreting these old books to fit the story of the Jesus. Paul was the first yahoo yahoo guy ever, I nor trruss am at all.

Paul was quoting the OT in his teaching.

Logicboy03:

lol...are you now Ihedinobi? Ignoring/denying objections and rebuttals to your position?

Jews wrote and interpreted the old testaments thousands of years before christians - what goves christianity then the right to have any authority on the old testament?

Jesus was a Jew, paul was a Jew, peter was a Jew, all NT writers were Jews.

What is your case sef? Na wao

InesQor:
I am certain you can give voice to your concern in clearer terms as is your regular wont.

BY your take, the Islamic understanding of the NT is also authoritative. . . for them. There is not, therefore, an original and more authoritative Christian understanding of the teaching of the NT.

The NT was written by Christians; is Christian Scripture, and has its Christian ideas therein.

Just as the OT was written by Jews; is Judaic scripture, and has its original Judaic ideas therein.

If you can take the scripture of the Jews and give it your own different authority, you must accept that its is also fine that the Islamists have taken both Judaic Scripture and Christian Scripture and given it their own authority.

truthislight:

Jesus was a Jew, paul was a Jew, peter was a Jew, all NT writers were Jews.

What is your case sef? Na wao

InesQor:

I see your point, though if you reckon, the early Christians had Jewish scholars like Paul and teachers like Jesus who interpreted things (for all intents and purposes, it's just as well as any other Rabbi would have interpreted to write a Midrash). This was not at all a case of an outsider interpreting a Jewish book.

1. There existed already standard Jewish understanding of the Jewish Scriptures. It is not sufficient therefore for one Jewish Rabbi to be an authority in changing that understanding which was already thousands of years old. At best he could have his personal opinion. . . that does not amount to authourity. This is just like saying that any individual Christian today who has an understanding of the NT different to that which is standard Christian fare, can be referred to as an authourity on the NT, or as authoritative understanding of the NT. . .

2. At all events, let us work with your reasoning. The Arabs are descendants of whom? Do they not trace their lineage too back to Ibrahim? As such, can they not authouritatively "understand" the OT as they please? Just as Jesus and his merry men did?

Let me bring this to life with an analogy. Let us say that I am a Christian today. Christians, based on their scriptures, are expecting the 2nd coming of Christ, just as Jews were expecting the Messiah.

I say to Christians today that I am the Christ and I have come on my 2nd coming, just as Jesus and his men said to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.

Christians reject my claim because it does not conform to their scriptural expectations of the 2nd coming, just as Jews rejected Jesus' claim because it did not conform to their scriptural expectations of the Messiah's coming.

I go ahead and gather a following. My following becomes big and large and over hundreds of years becomes a major world religion. Will my "understanding" of the NT thereby be "authoritative?"

This is exactly what happened between Judaism and Christianity - nothing more and nothing less - Exactly the story.

Deep Sight:

BY your take, the Islamic understanding of the NT is also authoritative. . . for them. There is not, therefore, an original and more authoritative Christian understanding of the teaching of the NT.

The NT was written by Christians; is Christian Scripture, and has its Christian ideas therein.

Just as the OT was written by Jews; is Judaic scripture, and has its original Judaic ideas therein.

If you can take the scripture of the Jews and give it your own different authority, you must accept that its is also fine that the Islamists have taken both Judaic Scripture and Christian Scripture and given it their own authority.

Mohammed's sources in the Quran were ancient Arabian beliefs and practices, Sabian and Jewish beliefs and fables, Zoroastrian and Hanif elements, AND Christian and Christian Apocryphal books. We are here concerned with his Christian sources.

His main Christian source was his first wife Khadija's cousin Waraqa who was a Christian. He was also given a present: a Christian slave girl (Mary, an Egyptian copt who became his concubine and he married her after she gave birth to a son). His last main Christian source were Christians in the village of Najran, further south of Medina.

A distinguishing difference between this scenario and that of the early Judeo-Christians, however, is that Muhammad could not AT ALL read the books from which the Christians used. It was all hearsay, and he was not scholastic in his approach.

However, as I already said earlier on in the thread,

InesQor:

Authority refers to an official, administrative or definitive exercise of dominant control or a potency of ideals within an association, organization, group or other collective. An authority is always restricted in its scope of office.

Thus, the Jews' interpetation is authoritative and holds precedence for them.
While that of the Christians is authoritative and holds precedence for them.
[size=14pt]Same as the account of the Muslims is authoritative and holds precedence for them.[/size]

Doesn't get easier

Repeat: The account of the Muslims is authoritative to THEM and holds precedence FOR THEM.

Now, you ask:

There is not, therefore, an original and more authoritative Christian understanding of the teaching of the NT.

No, No and No again. How can there be an authoritative Christian understanding of a Muslim religious text?

As I said, I say again:

Authority refers to an official, administrative or definitive exercise of dominant control or a potency of ideals within an association, organization, group or other collective. An authority is always restricted in its scope of office.

Which means your riposte is just another non-sequitur.

Deep Sight:



1. There existed already standard Jewish understanding of the Jewish Scriptures. It is not sufficient therefore for one Jewish Rabbi to be an authority in changing that understanding which was already thousands of years old. At best he could have his personal opinion. . . that does not amount to authourity. This is just like saying that any individual Christian today who has an understanding of the NT different to that which is standard Christian fare, can be referred to as an authourity on the NT, or as authoritative understanding of the NT. . .

2. At all events, let us work with your reasoning. The Arabs are descendants of whom? Do they not trace their lineage too back to Ibrahim? As such, can they not authouritatively "understand" the OT as they please? Just as Jesus and his merry men did?

See my post above. Islam was free to derive its religion from its understanding of the precedent Judaism, as it so pleased. As its understanding at that point in time so allowed.

Deep Sight: Let me bring this to life with an analogy. Let us say that I am a Christian today. Christians, based on their scriptures, are expecting the 2nd coming of Christ, just as Jews were expecting the Messiah.

I say to Christians today that I am the Christ and I have come on my 2nd coming, just as Jesus and his men said to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.

Christians reject my claim because it does not conform to their scriptural expectations of the 2nd coming, just as Jews rejected Jesus' claim because it did not conform to their scriptural expectations of the Messiah's coming.

I go ahead and gather a following. My following becomes big and large and over hundreds of years becomes a major world religion. Will my "understanding" of the NT thereby be "authoritative?"

This is exactly what happened between Judaism and Christianity - nothing more and nothing less - Exactly the story.

And by the time you're done, and you have your followers cheering OOIism (assuming that's the name of the religion), then your texts will be authoritative to your OOI followers; while the Christian's Bible remains authoritative to them.

There is no big deal here.

InesQor:

Mohammed's sources in the Quran were ancient Arabian beliefs and practices, Sabian and Jewish beliefs and fables, Zoroastian and Hanif elements, AND Christian and Christian Apocryphal books. We are here concerned with his Christian sources.

His main Christian source was his first wife Khadija's cousin Waraqa who was a Christian. He was also given a present: a Christian slave girl (Mary, an Egyptian copt who became his concubine and he married her after she gave birth to a son). His last main Christian source were Christians in the village of Najran, further south of Medina.

A distinguishing difference between this scenario and that of the early Judeo-Christians, however, is that Muhammad could not AT ALL read the books from which the Christians used. It was all hearsay, and he was not scholastic in his approach.

This is not relevant because not all Jews were scholars either. That you say Mohammed heard this and that from here and there is of no conseqience - just as many Jews heard and learnt of their scriptural traditions from others around them. In particular, the suggestion is strong within the NT that most of Jesus' disciples were simple unschooled men. And yet, these very men, based on what they had heard, became authourities on the interpretation of Judaic scripture and its prophetic fulfillment?

You have to be consistent, my brother.

However, as I already said earlier on in the thread,

Repeat: The account of the Muslims is authoritative to THEM and holds precedence FOR THEM.

And as far as authourity on the Jewish scripture is concerned, reference must be had to the Jewish understanding, period.

Now, you ask:


No, No and No again. How can there be an authoritative Christian understanding of a Muslim religious text?

And here you see that you are contradicting yourself! How can there be an authouritative Islamic understanding of a Christian Religious text? ? ? ?

This singular line surely ends the discussion!

As long as religion is faith-based and many things cannot be proven with exact sureness, anyone is free to take any element as authoritative and understand it for their own religious purposes.

Exceptions to the rule may arise, such as when it is clearly documented in history by non-religious academicians. And even in that case, you need to be willing to accept the historian's authority. Maybe he was bribed or something. The ball is always in the believer or non-believer's court.

InesQor:

And by the time you're done, and you have your followers cheering OOIism (assuming that's the name of the religion), then your texts will be authoritative to your OOI followers; while the Christian's Bible remains authoritative to them.

There is no big deal here.

Exactly. See the bold. My texts will be authouritative to my followers. And the bible will remain authouritative to Christians. As such, the texts of the Jews (OT) remain the Jews and they remain the authourity on such texts. The texts of the Christians (NT) remain the Christians and they remain the authourity on such texts. The texts of the muslims (Quoran/ Hadiths) remain the muslims and they remain the authourity on such texts.

Here is the problem: all of you are struggling for the root text - the OT - which is the scripture of the Jews.

You must accept that the Jews remain the authourity on what that text means.

Does origin of a text determine who becomes an authoriity of that text?

Deep Sight:

This is not relevant because not all Jews were scholars either. That you say Mohammed heard this and that from here and there is of no conseqience - just as many Jews heard and learnt of their scriptural traditions from others around them. In particular, the suggestion is strong within the NT that most of Jesus' disciples were simple unschooled men. And yet, these very men, based on what they had heard, became authourities on the interpretation of Judaic scripture and its prophetic fulfillment?

You have to be consistent, my brother.

No. MOST (if not ALL) of the NT books were written by respected scholars. Point at one that wasn't. Unlearned men like Peter traditionally used ghostwriting services of learned Jewish scholars.

Deep Sight:
And as far as authourity on the Jewish scripture is concerned, reference must be had to the Jewish understanding, period.

And as I explained to Mazaje, reference is INDEED had to the Jewish understanding. The differences, if any, are in Rabbinical personal interpretations. EVEN among the Rabbis, they do not agree on these interpretations and differences. Each one has their own school of thought, so in fact there may be more division among them THAN between Judaism and Christianity.

Deep Sight:
And here you see that you are contradicting yourself! How can there be an authouritative Islamic understanding of a Christian Religious text? ? ? ?

There is a difference. Muslims have accepted Mohammed's authority AND AS SUCH accepted the Quran's authority. Mohammed had a personal understanding of a Christian religious text; and this version ONLY becomes an authority to them BECAUSE Muslims have accepted HIS authority.
Can you not see the difference?

Deep Sight:
This singular line surely ends the discussion!

No it does not. JUST as Jesus taught on ancient Jewish laws and gave some of them new perspectives, and WE accept them OVER the precedings because we have accepted Christ's authority, the exact same grounds hold for Muslims. Any random Christian peeking into the Quran will say "This is not true. It does not apply to the case" and yes, it does not apply to THAT Christian's case. It applies to every Muslim's case.

Deep Sight:
You must accept that the Jews remain the authourity on what that text means.

Authority is either implicit (connotative) or explicit (denotative).

(A) Well the Jews remain an authority on what their text means TO THEM.

(B) Seeing as the first Christians were Jews, they will remain an authority on what it means to at least some Jews (including themselves, following point A above).

(C) Mohammed was neither Christian nor Jew though. His authority on the preceding scriptures is thus not implicit but explicit. His authority on the rendering of the text is conferred by virtue of His overall authority on his followers.

striktlymi: Does origin of a text determine who becomes an authoriity of that text?

Not at all. Rather, the acceptance of the text determines who is an authority of the text.

I am an engineer. Say I randomly happen on some medical breakthrough, no matter the origin or procedure I used, if it is not accepted in the medical world then I cannot be considered a medical authority worth listening to.

As long as a religion has chosen who to be an authority to them, there is no further argument on the authority of their scriptures.

InesQor:

And by the time you're done, and you have your followers cheering OOIism (assuming that's the name of the religion), then your texts will be authoritative to your OOI followers; while the Christian's Bible remains authoritative to them.

There is no big deal here.

^^^
Foolishness of the highest order

InesQor:

Not at all. Rather, the acceptance of the text determines who is an authority of the text.

I am an engineer. Say I randomly happen on some medical breakthrough, no matter the origin or procedure I used, if it is not accepted in the medical world then I cannot be considered an authority worth listening to.

As long as a religion has chosen who to be an authority to them, there is no further argument on the authority of their scriptures.

Hmmm...I understand your analogy and believe it makes sense but I was thinking in line of say a Nigerian who happens to be a prophesor of German history...just saying...can't he be considered an authority in that field even if he is not a German?

striktlymi:

Hmmm...I understand your analogy and believe it makes sense but I was thinking in line of say a Nigerian who happens to be a prophesor of German history...just saying...can't he be considered an authority in that field even if he is not a German?

Of course he is an authority as long as his work is being accepted in that field.