Prove it 2: Koran -innocent or PROMOTING terrorism

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
I always see a lot of arguements to back up the Koran saying "well the Bible says...."

Have any high ranking Christian officials ever declared fatwas that call for the killing of the infidel non Christians?

No. Christians never kill out of spite. Christians have killed to protect or to ensure safety, God's Favour, etc...Jerrico, as an example.

No Christian has ever killed simply because the 'other party' wasn't a believer. That is a very anti-Christ policy.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by dmp
No. Christians never kill out of spite. Christians have killed to protect or to ensure safety, God's Favour, etc...Jerrico, as an example.

No Christian has ever killed simply because the 'other party' wasn't a believer. That is a very anti-Christ policy.

Sorry, I should have prefaced the question with a sarcasm tag or something. The question was really aimed at Islamic terrorist apologists.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Where is everyone?

All of the people crying and screaming that Islam is a religion of peace and nobody can prove it?

All of the people claiming that Islam isn't involved with terrorism, and nobody has enough guts to show it?

Come on, fellas. Now is your chance to prove it.

The Islam practiced by millions of followers worldwide DOES NOT advocate terrorism.

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Where is everyone?

All of the people crying and screaming that Islam is a religion of peace and nobody can prove it?

All of the people claiming that Islam isn't involved with terrorism, and nobody has enough guts to show it?

Come on, fellas. Now is your chance to prove it.

To begin with, let me admit that I do not speak Arabic, have not read the complete Koran, and my knowledge of Arabian history is spotty at best (charges that New Guy has frequently reiterated to me). However, because it is my guess that no one on this board has a Phd. in Islamic studies, I don't feel that this automatically disqualifies any opinions I profess to have or the use of secondary sources (by experts) to back up my opinions. My opinions... Islam is probably no more a violent religion than Judaism (Christianity by way of the Gospels does appear to be significantly more peace affirming than other religions), and it is equally possible to draw divine inspired examples of extreme brutality and violence from both the Koran and the Old Testament. While Islam appears to be going through a violent period in its existence, Christianity has likewise undergone such periods. However, that should not be used to slander the religion as a whole or the millions of its peaceful adherents.

All of the information contained below was pulled directly (verbatim - I saw no need to elaborate) from the writings of John Esposito, Professor of Religion at Georgetown University, and a recognized expert on Islam. I am pulling passages from his articles, but the full text of the articles can be found at www.nitle.org/arabworld

First, what does Islam say about non-believers?
_____
"theologically and historically Islam has a long record of tolerance. The Quran clearly and strongly states that "there is to be no compulsion in religion" (2:256), and that God has created not one but many nations and peoples. Many passages underscore the diversity of humankind. The Quran teaches that God deliberately created a world of diversity (49:13) :

"O humankind, We have created you male and female and made you nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another."

Muslims, like Christians and Jews before them, believe that they have been called to a special covenant relationship with God, constituting a community of believers intended to serve as an example to other nations (2:143) in establishing a just social order (3:110) . Moreover, Muslims regard Jews and Christians as "People of the Book," people who have also received a revelation and a scripture from God (the Torah for Jews and the Gospels for Christians). The Quran and Islam recognize that followers of the three great Abrahamic religions, the children of Abraham, share a common belief in the one God, in biblical prophets such as Moses and Jesus, in human accountability, and in a Final Judgment followed by eternal reward or punishment. All share the common hope and promise of eternal reward:

"Surely the believers and the Jews, Christians and Sabians [Middle East groups traditionally recognized by Islam as having a monotheistic orientation], whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and whoever does right, shall have his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret"

(2:62) . Historically, while the early expansion and conquests spread Islamic rule, Muslims did not try to impose their religion on others or force them to convert. As "People of the Book," Jews and Christians were regarded as protected people ( dhimmi ), who were permitted to retain and practice their religions, be led by their own religious leaders, and be guided by their own religious laws and customs. For this protection, they paid a poll or head tax ( jizya ). While by modern standards this treatment amounted to second-class citizenship in premodern times, it was very advanced. No such tolerance existed in Christendom, where Jews, Muslims, and other Christians (those who did not accept the authority of the pope) were subjected to forced conversion, persecution, or expulsion."
____

But what about the verses so often cited as inciting violence against non-believers?
____
"But what of those verses, sometimes referred to as the "sword verses," that call for killing unbelievers, such as, "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush" (9:5) ? This is one of a number of Quranic verses that are cited by critics to demonstrate the inherently violent nature of Islam and its scripture. These same verses have also been selectively used (or abused) by religious extremists to develop a theology of hate and intolerance and to legitimate unconditional warfare against unbelievers. During the period of expansion and conquest, many of the ulama (religious scholars) enjoyed royal patronage and provided a rationale for caliphs to pursue their imperial dreams and extend the boundaries of their empires. They said that the "sword verses" abrogated or overrode the earlier Quranic verses that limited jihad to defensive war: In fact, however, the full intent of "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them" is missed or distorted when quoted in isolation. For it is followed and qualified by:

"But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat [the charitable tax on Muslims], then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind"

(9:5) . The same is true of another often quoted verse:

"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor hold the religion of truth [even if they are] of the People of the Book,"

which is often cited without the line that follows,

"Until they pay the tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"

(9:29) . Throughout history, the sacred scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have been used and abused, interpreted and misinterpreted, to justify resistance and liberation struggles, extremism and terrorism, holy and unholy wars."
________

I am done quoting. Sorry that this has been so long. Yes, the Koran in some passages espouses violence against non-believers. However, like all of the religious texts, these passages must be read in context with the book (and religion) as a whole, and a great deal of the message one takes from it depends on how they choose to interpret it. In fact, I would think that the passages one cites and interpretation one chooses say more about the interpreter than the text itself.

By the way, it has been accused by some on this post that I have an anti-Christian agenda and only attempt to stand up for Muslim beliefs as a back-handed way of criticizing Christian beliefs. Before anyone makes this charge again, I just wish to clarify that, of the major religions, my respect for Jesus' teachings is unparalled by those of any other religious leader, and it has never been my intent to criticize (except constructively - and even then, very rarely) that aspect of Christianity (although I do disagree with some other aspects of common Christian belief).

Once again, sorry for this long and rambling post. It is late and I am a little tired.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
My opinions... Islam is probably no more a violent religion than Judaism (Christianity by way of the Gospels does appear to be significantly more peace affirming than other religions), and it is equally possible to draw divine inspired examples of extreme brutality and violence from both the Koran and the Old Testament.

If the Bible did not give hundreds of prophecies which have already and continue to come true, your point might have weight. The prophetic significance of the Bible stands on its own bringing the Bible OUT of the comparison to any other religious text. The koran cannot show any prophetic significance.

The Bible proves its own devine origin which makes the entire comparison invalid. Either it IS the word of God, or it is a set of man-made beliefs. As being the word of God, the Bible is NOT an example of the word of God dictating ANY sort of violence or brutality in any case EXCEPT in the Old Testament according to God's word and it was never to achieve converts, but to put down the practice of sin where it has run rampant....IE: The great flood, or Israel coming into existence when the Jews took over.

While Islam appears to be going through a violent period in its existence, Christianity has likewise undergone such periods. However, that should not be used to slander the religion as a whole or the millions of its peaceful adherents.

1. Islam has never gone through a PEACEFUL period of existence. Their text stands on its own.

2. Slander would be when defaming the name of someone against fact and doing so to promote profit or gain to the opposition. We are NOT slandering.

3. You misunderstand your own estimation of "peaceful adherents".

First, what does Islam say about non-believers?
_____
"theologically and historically Islam has a long record of tolerance. The Quran clearly and strongly states that "there is to be no compulsion in religion" (2:256), and that God has created not one but many nations and peoples. Many passages underscore the diversity of humankind. The Quran teaches that God deliberately created a world of diversity (49:13) :

"O humankind, We have created you male and female and made you nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another."

This has nothing to do with a belief system, but fellowship.

Muslims, like Christians and Jews before them, believe that they have been called to a special covenant relationship with God, constituting a community of believers intended to serve as an example to other nations (2:143) in establishing a just social order (3:110) . Moreover, Muslims regard Jews and Christians as "People of the Book," people who have also received a revelation and a scripture from God (the Torah for Jews and the Gospels for Christians). The Quran and Islam recognize that followers of the three great Abrahamic religions, the children of Abraham, share a common belief in the one God, in biblical prophets such as Moses and Jesus, in human accountability, and in a Final Judgment followed by eternal reward or punishment. All share the common hope and promise of eternal reward:

NOTE: THEY CLAIM JESUS TO BE A PROPHET, -NOT- GOD. THAT is the difference here. The Bible teaches only ONE God, Jesus as God in the flesh, part of the Holy Trinity. The quote above claims Jesus was only a prophet. This seperates any Christian or Jew from EVER being considered a follower of the koran UNLESS they give up their Biblical Godly heritage and accept the koran.

Your entire defense has just fallen apart.

(2:62) . Historically, while the early expansion and conquests spread Islamic rule, Muslims did not try to impose their religion on others or force them to convert. As "People of the Book," Jews and Christians were regarded as protected people ( dhimmi ), who were permitted to retain and practice their religions, be led by their own religious leaders, and be guided by their own religious laws and customs.

As illustrated, only if giving up the Bible.

And, if this were true, we would not have the deaths of millions over the last thousand years to illustrate the falsehood here about their conquests.

For this protection, they paid a poll or head tax ( jizya ). While by modern standards this treatment amounted to second-class citizenship in premodern times, it was very advanced. No such tolerance existed in Christendom, where Jews, Muslims, and other Christians (those who did not accept the authority of the pope) were subjected to forced conversion, persecution, or expulsion."

FALSE.

NOBODY has EVER been forced to become a Christian by the sword or any other means. Catholocism is on its own defense, for which there is none, as they follow their own theology of praying to the dead and supplanting ritual and intercession of MAN in place of GOD for salvation. -That is not Christianity.
____

"But what of those verses, sometimes referred to as the "sword verses," that call for killing unbelievers, such as, "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush" (9:5) ? This is one of a number of Quranic verses that are cited by critics to demonstrate the inherently violent nature of Islam and its scripture. These same verses have also been selectively used (or abused) by religious extremists to develop a theology of hate and intolerance and to legitimate unconditional warfare against unbelievers. During the period of expansion and conquest, many of the ulama (religious scholars) enjoyed royal patronage and provided a rationale for caliphs to pursue their imperial dreams and extend the boundaries of their empires. They said that the "sword verses" abrogated or overrode the earlier Quranic verses that limited jihad to defensive war: In fact, however, the full intent of "When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them" is missed or distorted when quoted in isolation. For it is followed and qualified by:

"But if they repent and fulfill their devotional obligations and pay the zakat [the charitable tax on Muslims], then let them go their way, for God is forgiving and kind"

EXACTLY. They must repent by tossing out their Bible which claims Jesus IS God and accept the koran's teaching that he was a PROPHET ONLY.....again, as illustrated above. Therefore if they don't, they are subject to the sword as idolitors.

(9:5) . The same is true of another often quoted verse:

"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor hold the religion of truth [even if they are] of the People of the Book,"

which is often cited without the line that follows,

"Until they pay the tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"

Point proven again, thank you.

(9:29) . Throughout history, the sacred scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have been used and abused, interpreted and misinterpreted, to justify resistance and liberation struggles, extremism and terrorism, holy and unholy wars."

So? That hasn't happened here, except by your beloved "qualified" professor.

However, like all of the religious texts, these passages must be read in context with the book (and religion) as a whole,

Correct, we just did that.

and a great deal of the message one takes from it depends on how they choose to interpret it. In fact, I would think that the passages one cites and interpretation one chooses say more about the interpreter than the text itself.

NO. You would "interpret" a face mask rule in football then? Religion is not open to interpretation if it claims to be the word of God. Not only is the koran NOT the word of God, as proven by prophecy alone but it is also a literal rule book to be taken in context as you JUST SAID. Anyone "interpreting" it doesn't FOLLOW it.

By the way, it has been accused by some on this post that I have an anti-Christian agenda and only attempt to stand up for Muslim beliefs as a back-handed way of criticizing Christian beliefs. Before anyone makes this charge again, I just wish to clarify that, of the major religions, my respect for Jesus' teachings is unparalled by those of any other religious leader, and it has never been my intent to criticize (except constructively - and even then, very rarely) that aspect of Christianity (although I do disagree with some other aspects of common Christian belief).

If your defense was of Christianity based upon the weakness of fact your proof of Islam was, you would be accused of falsely promoting Christianity and ignoring all else because of an agenda too.

Face it, the accusations prove themselves correct. -And so did your post.

 

[DKSuddeth]

wait. is jesus the son of god, or is he god?

and doesn't the old and new testaments portray him differently?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
wait. is jesus the son of god, or is he god?

and doesn't the old and new testaments portray him differently?

Jesus is supposed to be the "Son of God" as God incarnated in human flesh. Back to this in a moment.

HE is the "Word" by self-procalimation. In the Old Testament, there are references to the "Word" coming to be among the people. The "Word" is ALSO referred to as the Bible.

The best correlation I could draw is that both are the only physical incarnations of instruction of God's law and dictation for us to know on Earth.

In the old testament, only Jews who had burnt offerings or other similar sacrifices of "pure" lambs could attone for sins. When Jesus was born of a virgin and in a majestic bloodline, it was created HE was now "pure" by birth and as God in the Flesh, did not EVER sin. This left Him pure to eventually pay the ultimate price of dying as the FINAL sacrifice so all in the world may know God by choice and decision, rather than attonement for every sin which would be a physical impossibility.

Jesus claimed in His ministry to BE God, but not "the father". He claimed it was through Himself (Jesus) that one must go to come to the "father.

NOw you have 2 components. -The Father, and the Son. The Holy "spirit" is the 3rd part. It is referenced in the Old Testament and the new. The best place I like to point to in the new is where Jesus claims right before His death, that He will be leaving, but a "helper" will replace Him until He returns.

That "helper" is the Holy spirit which lives in each believer and is their direct relationship with God.

Jesus is part of the 3 components of "God". 1 being with 3 parts as an apple would have a seed, skin, and meat.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Then whats your take on the first scroll of the dead sea scrolls?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Then whats your take on the first scroll of the dead sea scrolls?

You just hit me with one I have no direct knowledge about. I will have to look it up. Are you asking about the validity of it? -Or are we talking about key points IN it?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
You just hit me with one I have no direct knowledge about. I will have to look it up. Are you asking about the validity of it? -Or are we talking about key points IN it?

Theres only one key point about it, and I guess you're take on the validity as well.

It goes something like "the kingdom of god is within you, and all around you"

My guiding thought on this, combined with what I interpret about jesus and the old and new testaments, is that God is within you. jesus, although the son of god, is not god, but a prophet of god.

thats just my thought on it so far

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Theres only one key point about it, and I guess you're take on the validity as well.

It goes something like "the kingdom of god is within you, and all around you"

My guiding thought on this, combined with what I interpret about jesus and the old and new testaments, is that God is within you. jesus, although the son of god, is not god, but a prophet of god.

thats just my thought on it so far

Carefull..don't deny Christ. If you believe Christ a prophet, you must think he told the truth. Christ claimed to be The Son of God AND God. Of course, if you feel Christ is a liar, then he'd not be much of a prophet, would he?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dmp
Carefull..don't deny Christ. If you believe Christ a prophet, you must think he told the truth. Christ claimed to be The Son of God AND God. Of course, if you feel Christ is a liar, then he'd not be much of a prophet, would he?

I guess that would be proof enough to discard the scroll if the overwhelming context goes against this.

While in complete agreement with dmp, I am going to look it up for reference so I can answer the questions with a knowledge of the scroll.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dmp
Carefull..don't deny Christ. If you believe Christ a prophet, you must think he told the truth. Christ claimed to be The Son of God AND God. Of course, if you feel Christ is a liar, then he'd not be much of a prophet, would he?

I'm not a theology major. Neither am I a big fan of organized religion.

I'm not denying christ but are talking about old or new testament? where he claimed to be the son of god AND god?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I'm not a theology major. Neither am I a big fan of organized religion.

Believe it or not, I am in the same position on both counts.

where he claimed to be the son of god AND god?

Unless someone else wants to field this, I am still looking up the scroll. I will have to get back to it after that.

 

[Reilly]

You must be willfully ignorant.

Originally posted by NewGuy
If the Bible did not give hundreds of prophecies which have already and continue to come true, your point might have weight. The prophetic significance of the Bible stands on its own bringing the Bible OUT of the comparison to any other religious text. The koran cannot show any prophetic significance.

The Bible proves its own devine origin which makes the entire comparison invalid. Either it IS the word of God, or it is a set of man-made beliefs. As being the word of God, the Bible is NOT an example of the word of God dictating ANY sort of violence or brutality in any case EXCEPT in the Old Testament according to God's word and it was never to achieve converts, but to put down the practice of sin where it has run rampant....IE: The great flood, or Israel coming into existence when the Jews took over.

This shit is so backwards I don't know where to begin.

1. "If the Bible did not give hundreds of prophecies which have already and continue to come true, your point might have weight." -If you judge Islam as juxtaposed to your own beliefs, which you believe are correct, then argument makes little point. Needless to say that Muslims are as firm in their beliefs as you are in yours. That shit about prophecies I just don't buy. Even assuming that the Bible made 1000 prophecies, 900 of which have already come true, that does not prove the Bible. Just because I have correctly predicted the last 7 Super Bowl winners, that doesn't prove that every prediction for the Super Bowl that I make will come to pass, or that I even knew that the first 7 would come to pass. By the way, what about "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:27). Forgive me if I am wrong, but I wasn't aware we are living in the kingdom of God. (By the way New Guy, I know that you have some alternative interpretation of this verse show me what Jesus REALLY meant when he said that, but that just shows how important interpretation is to all religious texts.) On a side note, prophecies are great. You make a vague prophecy, wait until something in the world happens that might fit, say it is proved and you are immediately imbued with divine providence. Of course if it hasn't come to pass yet, all you have to do is nod sagely and say "give it time."

2. "EXCEPT in the Old Testament according to God's word and it was never to achieve converts, but to put down the practice of sin where it has run rampant....IE: The great flood, or Israel coming into existence when the Jews took over" - Sin is defined by the religion, so violence to stamp out sin is another way of terrorizing other peoples for not believing as you (not you personally, of course) do.


This has nothing to do with a belief system, but fellowship.

What the hell does that mean. When faced with several cites showing Islamic tolerance to non-believers, this is what you come up with? Non-believers (according to the Koran and apparently practiced at times) were not forced to convert, but merely had to pay the head tax, which was apparently a very liberal attitude in those time.



NOTE: THEY CLAIM JESUS TO BE A PROPHET, -NOT- GOD.

Yes. I understand that that is a major distinction between their religion and yours. Kudos.

THAT is the difference here. The Bible teaches only ONE God, Jesus as God in the flesh, part of the Holy Trinity. The quote above claims Jesus was only a prophet. This seperates any Christian or Jew from EVER being considered a follower of the koran UNLESS they give up their Biblical Godly heritage and accept the koran.

The Muslims believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims all share the same "Biblical Godly heritage." As for the rest, you are right, Muslims would say that someone who believes that Jesus was the Son of God was not following the Koran. No big shocker there. You know what else, Christians would say that Jews who don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God are not following the New Testament. Wow. This is shocking stuff.

FALSE.

NOBODY has EVER been forced to become a Christian by the sword or any other means. Catholocism is on its own defense, for which there is none, as they follow their own theology of praying to the dead and supplanting ritual and intercession of MAN in place of GOD for salvation. -That is not Christianity.

Nice job, you say that no one has ever been forced to become a Christian by the sword, EXCEPT those pesky Catholics (the predominant Christian religion for two millenium) who aren't Christians anyway, because their beliefs aren't enough like yours.
However, you are still wrong. Henry VIII hung Catholics as heretics for not recognizing his supremacy as the Head of the Church of England. That sounds pretty close to forced conversion to me. Oh wait, you probably meant that your individual sect of Christianity has never forced conversions (or perhaps you just meant your individual church).

EXACTLY. They must repent by tossing out their Bible which claims Jesus IS God and accept the koran's teaching that he was a PROPHET ONLY.....again, as illustrated above. Therefore if they don't, they are subject to the sword as idolitors.

You obviously didn't read that earlier post and article by Prof. Esposito which states that exact opposite.

Look, you asked for a demonstration that Islam is not a violent religion intent on destroying all non-believers. I presented you with an article citing and discussing the Koran's sometimes peaceful attitude toward non-believers, and interpreting in context and historical practice, its sometimes apparently hostile attitude toward non-believers. If your interpretation of the Koran differs, fine. Just don't pretend that it is as one-sided as you would like to believe.

One more thing, if you could knock it out with your "Point proven," and "Your entire defense has just fallen apart" self-congratulatory shit, I would be eternally grateful. These are complex issues & if you can't recognize that or can't understand it, then fine, but don't act as if your statements are the end all and be all of scholarship on this topic and that no further dialogue is necessary once you have issued a decree. You are not that smart.

 

[Reilly]

DKSuddeth,
I feel like we agree on a number of things, but I don't feel that I get the support that I look for --- and it hurts. My feelings Man . . . they matter. Why do you pain me with your indifference? Would it be so hard to offer up a "Good post Reilly," "Nice to hear from you Reilly," even a "You are not a complete asshole Reilly" - is that so hard?
I just wanted to share and be open about my feelings. That is all.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I'm not a theology major. Neither am I a big fan of organized religion.

I'm not denying christ but are talking about old or new testament? where he claimed to be the son of god AND god?

For what it's worth, CHRIST is not/was not a big fan of Organized Religion either... You're in good company there...

Christ didn't claim ANYTHING in the OT - he wasn't born when most of it was written The OT Clearly paints the WAY for God-come-in-man Christ to arrive, however.

John states very clearly Christ's equality with God

"In the beginning was the Word. (Syn. for Christ), The word was WITH God and the word was God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made". This includes all the stars, all the original animals and plants, and even the angels (Colossians 1:15-17).


Another:

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


More:

1) MATTHEW 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. {the devil was tempting Jesus Himself}

2) MATTHEW 10:40 . . . he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

3) MATTHEW 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and {he} to whomsoever the Son will reveal {him}.

4) MATTHEW 13:13-15 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: (15) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and {their} ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with {their} eyes, and hear with {their} ears, and should understand with {their} heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

>>>ISAIAH 6:9-10 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. (10) Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.<<<

5) MARK 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

6) JOHN 5:17-21 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (19) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (20) For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. (21) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth {them}; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

7) JOHN 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

8) JOHN 7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

9) JOHN 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am {he}, ye shall die in your sins.

10) JOHN 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am {he}, and {that} I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

11) JOHN 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

12) JOHN 10:30-33 I and {my} Father are one. (31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

13) JOHN 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father {is} in me, and I in him.

14) JOHN 12:44-45 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. (45) And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

15) JOHN 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am {he}.

16) JOHN 14:7-10 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. (8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. (9) Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou {then}, Shew us the Father? (10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

17) JOHN 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

18) JOHN 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew {it} unto you.

19) JOHN 17:10-11 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. (11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we {are}.

20) Use of "Father" Jesus constantly referred to God as "My Father" and claimed to have a unique relationship with Him. In Mark 14:36 He called God Abba, Aramaic for "daddy," an absolutely unprecedented address of God {cf. Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6}. And He says "My Father and Your Father" (Jn 20:17), not "our Father." The Jews understood full well what Jesus was implying by repeatedly speaking of His singular relationship with God the Father, but thought this was blasphemy, since they didn't believe that He Himself was God the Son {cf. Jn 5:18, 10:33 above}.

21) Divine "I" Jesus teaches in His own authority ("I say to you") in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:18,20,22,26,28,32,34, etc.), and many other passages. The prophets, in contrast, spoke as God's messengers in the second person ("The Lord says . . ."). He often talks in a way in which only God could speak. For instance, when He addresses the seven churches in the book of Revelation, He is clearly speaking to them as God (Rev 1:17-3:22). Perhaps the most striking example of this "Divine `I'" occurs in Matthew 23:34-39:

MATTHEW 23:34-39 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and {some} of them ye shall kill and crucify; and {some} of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute {them} from city to city: (35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, {thou} that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under {her} wings, and ye would not! (38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (39) For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed {is} he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

>>>JEREMIAH 22:5 But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation.<<< Another instance of Jesus' assumed divine prerogative is recorded in Matthew 7:21-22:

MATTHEW 7:21-22 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

 

[Reilly]

Nice piece of scholarship dmp.

See how easy that was DKSuddeth?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Reilly
DKSuddeth,
I feel like we agree on a number of things, but I don't feel that I get the support that I look for --- and it hurts. My feelings Man . . . they matter. Why do you pain me with your indifference? Would it be so hard to offer up a "Good post Reilly," "Nice to hear from you Reilly," even a "You are not a complete asshole Reilly" - is that so hard?
I just wanted to share and be open about my feelings. That is all.

Reilly, please don't take this the wrong way, but what the hell are you talking about?

I'm glad you feel we agree on a number of things, but I can't support you if even I don't understand both positions and am looking for clarification on both. Its not indifference when I'm trying to learn from both sides.

so good post to everybody, I guess, but it doesn't matter. Kind of like the points on 'who's line is it anyway'.

and is there a time on this board where I've called you an asshole and need to recant part of it?

do me a favor, put your feelings back in your chest and off of your sleeve. I can't support anyone if I don't even know what position I stand on.

Just wanted to be open with you as well, that is all

 

[Reilly]

Well, that was not quite the affirmation that I was looking for, but I will take it.

No you have never called me an asshole.