Muslims say they accept the Shariah but reject Hudud, which is part of the Shariah. They say Hudud is not in the Qur’an. But then neither is praying five times a day and the manner in which we have to pray. Hudud is in the Old Testament but Christians say they reject the Old Testament and only follow the New Testament. But the stories of all the Prophets before Jesus are in the Old Testament and yet Christians believe in all the Prophets of the Old Testament.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God – fully human and fully divine – and that through believing in him and following his teachings they can inherit eternal life.
To believe in Jesus, there must be a believe that everything was created by God and that Adam was the first human created by god and is also the first man to defy god's command.
God's Law (HUDUD) - Muslim Law, Divine Punishment. Hudud is just one branch of the Shariah, which has many sets of laws, Hudud being just one of them.
So the question is not whether to accept or reject Hudud. It is whether you accept or reject the Shariah. And if you accept the Shariah then Hudud is part of it. If you wish to reject Hudud then you need to reject the Shariah as well, the ‘parent’ of Hudud.
So if you ask those Muslims, do they accept or reject the Shariah? Simple question. Yes or no? You do not accept one part of Islam and then reject the rest. You also do not accept one part of the Shariah and then reject the rest.
Some Christians do that. They accept one part of Christianity and then reject the rest. So they cherry-pick the part of Christianity that they like and then ignore the part that they don’t like. That is why very few Christians are true Christians. Most are fakes and frauds who are just hypocrites.
In Islam these types of people are called munafik. For example, when we tell Christians that Hudud is in the Bible, they reply that that is the Old Testament (OT). Christians no longer follow the OT, they tell us, they follow the New Testament (NT). But then the stories of Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joseph, etc., are in the OT, not the NT. So do Christians reject all these other Prophets before Jesus or do they accept them? They say they no longer follow the OT but follow the NT. But then they believe in all those Prophets before Jesus that are in the OT.
Now tell me, is this not just like Muslims who accept part of the Shariah that they like and reject the part they don’t like, for example Hudud? Now, those Muslims who say they reject the Hudud do so because they say Hudud is not mentioned in the Qur’an. If Hudud is not mentioned in the Qur’an then where did it come from? Is it from the Hadith?
There are even some who say they accept the Qur’an but reject the Hadith. The anti-Hudud gang is actually also anti-Hadith. I have no problems if they are anti-Hudud and/or anti-Hadith. Even I think that many Hadith are stupid and make a mockery of Islam.
But then do these people pray five times a day? And if they do then how do they pray? The Qur’an does not mention that you must pray five times a day. Neither does it explain how you pray and the rituals involved. So, if you reject Hadith and only accept the Qur’an, that means you do not pray five times a day and in the manner Muslims normally do. As such if a Muslim who doesn't perform prayers is considered as a non believer?
Can you see how Christians and Muslims are birds of a feather? Both are confused like hell and talk nonsense. Most times they do not know their own religion. Before the Christians waste their time trying to teach Muslims about Islam, they should first of all go teach their own flock and explain that the OT and the NT are BOTH part of Christianity and that Hudud is in the OT and Jesus came to strengthen the laws, not to abolish them. Your own Christians sesat gila and you want to try to teach Muslims about Islam and Hudud! There will be two things you need to convince Muslims about before they will join you to also oppose Islamic laws, the Syariah or Hudud. First would be you must convince Muslims that Islamic laws, the
Syariah or Hudud are not part of Islam and are not mentioned in the Qur’an or Hadith. All these so-called Islamic laws, the Syariah or Hudud were never made mandatory by Allah and were in fact fabrications and creations of enemies of Islam long after the death of Prophet Muhammad.
Second, you must convince Muslims that Islamic laws, the Syariah or Hudud do not concern religion or Islam but are matters that concern the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. So when you discuss this matter you need to look at it in the context of the Constitution and not in the context of Islam, the Qur’an or the Hadith.
Once you can convince Muslims about these two key issues then it would be easier for Muslims to accept the argument that Islamic laws, the Syariah or Hudud have no place in Malaysia. The problem is most Muslims think that to oppose Islamic laws, the Syariah or Hudud means you are defying God. Once they realise that Islamic laws, the Syariah or Hudud having nothing to do with God, Islam or the Qur’an/Hadith, then Muslims will readily reject them and agree that a country should be turned into a Secular State.
Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani
The Death of Jesus From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?”
On the night of his arrest, Jesus was said to have gone outside to the Garden of Gethsemane to prostrate on the ground to pray to God (“My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me” — Matthew 26:38). Jesus was also said to have cried out ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ while on the cross. If Jesus is the Lord or God in disguise or the Son of God (which also makes him God), why would he need to pray to God and demonstrate desperation?
In Matthew 3:13-17, it says as follows:
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist and the majority of scholars agree that Jesus was a follower of John. They also agree that many followers of John later became followers of Jesus. Mark, Luke and John also imply the same thing although there are some contradictions and inaccuracies in the story when you start comparing all four Gospels.
Now, John was a Jew, as was Jesus and all their followers (John’s and Jesus’). So there is no reference whatsoever to Christians, who did not yet exist at that time.
Hence the entire event and references in the Gospels are talking about Jews, not Christians. Jesus was a Jew, as was his ‘baptizer’, John, and so were James and Peter who continued with the teachings of Jesus after his death. And the church of Jesus was only concerned about Jews and not Gentiles. In fact, there is a reference in the Gospels where Jesus turned a woman away because she was not a Jew. This is mentioned in Matthew 15:21-28.
21. Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
22. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
23. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to Him and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24. He answered, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25. The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
27. “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28. Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
It was not until Saul a.k.a. Paul that the teachings of Jesus were spread to non-Jews. And this was the main conflict between Paul and the rest of the Jesus Movement such as Peter and James. And that resulted in Paul getting ‘ousted’ from the Movement — so he migrated to Rome to continue to preach his ‘new’ teachings to non-Jews.
As such, based on such understanding of the whole event is that Jesus was not introducing a new religion called Christianity. He wanted the Jews to return to the correct teachings of Judaism (I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel). And this is what Peter and James also wanted to do. It was Paul who created this new religion called Christianity. And that was why Peter and James were against Paul.
For example, the Trinity was not the teachings of Jesus but came about more than 300 years later during the time of Constantine. And this is the foundation of the Roman Church, which many ‘Christians’ at that time did not accept. But then those who opposed the doctrine of the Trinity were put to death — so the dissidents were eventually wiped out while the Roman Church survived and flourished under the patronage of Constantine and those who came after him. On the night of his arrest, Jesus was said to have gone outside to the Garden of Gethsemane to prostrate on the ground to pray to God (“My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me” — Matthew 26:38). Jesus was also said to have cried out ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ while on the cross. If Jesus is the Lord or God in disguise or the Son of God (which also makes him God), why would he need to pray to God and demonstrate desperation?
Who Was The Real Jesus Christ (Biblical Documentary) | Timeline
The Trinity turns Jesus into a God. But Jesus never claimed that. In fact, Jesus was baptised by John and became his follower and not the other way around. No doubt the Resurrection is explained as Jesus dying for our sins. If that is true then Jesus should have known this and he would not have shown signs of desperation by crying out ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’
We are told that when Jesus was arrested all his disciples ran away to safety and even denied that they were with Jesus. But then the Gospels relate in great detail what happened during the Crucifixion as if the ‘eyewitnesses’ were all there. If no one was around then who were these eyewitnesses?
An academic study of that period must include all the historical reports and not just the Gospels, which understandably would be biased. And other than Josephus, none of the other so many historians mentioned Jesus. It is as if he never existed.
If Jesus was a great leader of his time, as was John, and since whenever Jesus travelled from place to place a ‘multitude’ followed him around, then he would have been significant enough to be mentioned by all these historians. But he was not. You cannot have had such a great event like that not being mentioned by all those historians when they reported in great detail even lesser and not so significant events of that time.
Was Jesus a Disciple of John? William B. Badke
The early relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist has long been a topic of controversy. Some have argued that the two men never even met. Others have affirmed, usually with little provided evidence, that Jesus began his ministry as a disciple of John.
In a paper published in The Evangelical Quarterly in January 1988,1 the argument was made that the earliest explanation of the cite of baptism was not that it depicted death and resurrection but that it was a declaration of adherence. The following paper will argue that Jesus, baptized by John, did indeed become John’s disciple, but that the common conventions of that discipleship were broken by the Baptist himself in order that Jesus might carry out his messianic ministry. If such an argument can be supported, it will reconcile some apparently contradictory Gospel statements and add evidence to the view that the earliest meaning attached to baptism was adherence.
James vs 'St.Paul' (Which teachings is considered God's teachings or laws?)
Paul wrote his first epistle in 48 and in 58 he wrote the final epistle. In 66 (some say in 64), Nero executed both Paul and Peter in Rome, the same year of the Jewish revolt.
In 70, the Romans totally destroyed Jerusalem and burned it to the ground so that nothing remains, the same year that the Gospel of Mark was written.
It was not until 30 years later that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written and 50 years later into the second century that the Gospel of John was written (almost 100 years after Jesus).
In other words, what the Christians call the New Testament was written after the destruction of the Jesus Movement as well as the Jerusalem Church. Furthermore, the New Testament breaks from what Christians call the Old Testament and effectively creates a new version of Christianity that departs from the Christianity of the Jesus Movement and the Jerusalem Church.
In 313, Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan followed by the Nicaea Council in 325 in Turkey and the Council of Hippo Regius in 398 in Algeria.
Over the 300 years since the ascension of Jesus, the Christian world was in disarray. So, in 325, Constantine brought together 2,000 bishops from all over the world with instructions that they would not be allowed to go home until they resolve the issue of the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God.
The discord of the Christian world was whether Jesus was human or divine.
After months of quarrelling and arguing, the Council handed to Constantine what is now known as the Nicene Creed, outlining for the first time the official and sanctioned orthodox beliefs of the Christian Church.
“He is Light from Light, true God from true God, and begotten not made, of the same substance as the Father.” Jesus is literally the Son of God (as Paul said) and not allegorically the Son of God (as the Jesus Movement of Jerusalem said).
Basically, this doctrine is based on the Letters of Paul.
Those who disagreed with this Creed were immediately banished from the Christian Empire and some even put to death for the crime of heresy and/or blasphemy and their teachings banned.
In 398, another group of bishops assembled in Hippo Regius to canonise what Christians today call the New Testament. More than half the 27 books of the New Testament are either by Paul or about Paul.
It must also be noted that there was serious conflict between Paul and the Jesus Movement of Jerusalem regarding other matters of doctrine. The Jesus Movement argued that Jesus came to fulfil the Laws of Moses, not to abolish them like what Paul argued.
According to Paul, to become a Christian you need not be circumcised and pork is also considered as Kosher, like Paul said, who himself was circumcised.
Law and Order
Were James and Paul at odds over the intent and application of Jesus’ teachings? In the Protestant world today, perceptions of James are heavily influenced by the thinking of Martin Luther, who saw James’s New Testament letter as “an epistle of straw,” not worthy to be considered part of Scripture. It was, after all, in opposition to Luther’s own ideas of grace. James’s reference to the “royal law” clearly did not mesh with what Luther wrongly saw as Paul’s outright condemnation of the law in his letter to the Galatians—and thus his reduction of the Old Testament to second-class status within the emerging Protestant world. To justify this view, Luther and those following him created a theological contradiction between Paul and James over faith and works.
“…some will fall away from the faith… forbidding marriage, abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude, for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.” (1 Tim. 4:1-4)
Paul did not deem circumcision necessary, as witnessed throughout his writings, but thought that God included gentiles into his New Covenant through faith in Christ. This brought him into conflict with Jewish Christians, who requested strict observances by gentile Christians.
In 57, James and the apostles demanded that Paul come to Jerusalem to face the Apostolic Council to answer to the charge of deviant teachings. In Paul’s own account of the meeting in a letter to the Galatians soon after that, Paul said that he was ‘ambushed by false believers’. Paul, who was clearly upset and at odds with the Council, left Jerusalem for Rome after that to continue with his own church that was considered a breakaway church from the Church of Jerusalem.
The three main types of Christians
1. The first common type is the introvert conservatives, who are generally shy, reticent, and typically individualistic self-centered persons, predominantly concerned with their own thoughts and feelings, with nary a care for things outside the walls of their church.
These traditionally orthodox Christians are always concerned about their own “spiritual growth”, and are generally timid and harmless. They live their lives in the familiar safe comfort zone of their church community, and speak a sort of churchy language, often convicing themselves that they will be okay if they go to church regularly, give often to the church and their pastor, pray always in whatever situation they are in, and shun, evade and eschew controversial matters, especially political ones. They dress decently and avoid elaborate and spectacular extravagant and lavish display of wealth and luxury. They made good church members and citizens as they never ask questions or challenge any rule, precept or instruction, no matter how excessive, unreasonable or even oppressive the rules and instructions are. They are generally afraid of anything official, especially the government and its enforcement agencies. Mention the ISA or May 13, and they will secrete cold sweat and clinched in fear.
Their pastors and church leaders love these church members, because they are literally under their complete control, and want them to remain in their innocent gullible situation. Hence, there is no real teaching of doctrines, biblical and theological matters, and on issues concerned with life, thoughts and faith in relation to the world outside the church. Actually, the pastors and church leaders themselves are as biblically and theologically disabled as their church members. Hence, they play church happily, and never growing beyond their religious pubescence. The church is their safe abode, and anything outside the church is none of their business.
The pastors and leaders of such churches generally avoid speaking up on issues, even if the issues affect their churches or their rights to religious freedom. They will not sign petitions to seek release of political and religious freedom fighters, and will not want to be part of the movement to struggle for the right to use the word “Allah” in the worship, teaching, preaching and publications of the Church. We have many of such Christians in the Malaysian Christian community.
2. The second type of Christians are the so-called Health and Wealth charismatics, whose main focus in their life, thoughts and faith is material wealth and luxurious living. Their church worship services are no difference from that of an entertainment disco joint, with whirling colourful psychedelic lights, with an intense, vivid and swirling abstract loud music and repeated chantings masquerading as worship songs that produce religious hallucinations and apparent expansion of spiritual consciousness.
Most of the worshippers jump, wave, swing, sway and undulated to the thumping rhythm of the deafening music, and wail loudly, with some making animal sounds. There is no solid biblical exposition, only entertaining motivation talks masquerading as sermons. A good preacher is one who tells a lot of stories and joke, and make the congregation laugh. No Bible message, just a feel good prosperity gospel.
Such churches are usually housed in mega complex with attractive facilities like gyms and swimming pools to attract members of other churches to their fold. There is no growth by evangelism or conversion, only the seduction of church members from other churches. These people are certainly brain-washed into giving large sums of money to their churches and pastors. Most of the pastors of such churches receive big fat pay packets, driving top brand cars, and live in luxury houses in upmarket residential areas. They go on church-sponsored overseas holiday masquerading as “mission trip” two or three times a year.
Obviously, the pastors, leaders and members from such churches couldn’t care about what is happening in the real world outside their churches. They are in a world of their own. For the members, the churches are where they can find escape from their frustration, misery, griefs, mental suffering, and get release and relief for themselves. For the pastor, the church is a bigh income generator, giving him undreamt of wealth and luxury. The recent news reports of a mega church in Singapore, where the pastor is a multi-millionare is one example of such a church.
Such churches will not hestitate to remove any religious artifacts, like the Cross, and stop singing hymns and praying in order to receive a non-Christian VIP. To the pastors and church leaders, the Lord Jesus Christ is irrelevant so long as they receive material benefits such as government grants for their mega church building and facilities. After all, Christ is just a brandname of their religious commercial enterprise.
3. Finally, there are the radical non-comformist Christians, who will stick out their necks to stand up for their faith and principles. There is no organised body of such Christians, but they are found in various churches, especially the traditional denomination churches. These are Christians who are well-educated in their faith, know what it means to be “salt of the Earth” and “lights of the World”, are professionals in the various fields in the secular marketplace, are outspoken and articulate in issues, especially on matters concerning the truth, righteous, justice, fairness, racial and gender equality, freedom of religious practices, freedom or speech and press, and accountability and transparency in the church and in government.
These are the Christians that the pastors and church leaders generally ignore and avoid, and will distance themselves from, for fear of getting into the bad book of the authorities. We don’t find them holding leadership positions in the churches, but we see them active in the secular marketplace, spearheading the struggle for the advancement of God’s kingdom among the people of the world, standing up and sacrificing career prospects for the sake of the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
These radical non-conformist Christians will never allow their faith and ethics to be compromised for the sake of acceptance by any unreasonable and oppressive regime.
May the god have Mercy...
But in Paul’s thinking, instead of humanity divided as “Israel and the nations” which is the classic understanding of Judaism, we have “Israel “after the flesh” (i.e., the Jewish people), non-Jews whom he calls “the nations,” (i.e., Gentiles) and a new people called “the church of God” made of all those whom he designates as “in Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:32).
This does not mean that Paul advocated immoral living, he surely did not. In all his letters he takes pains to enforce and reinforce the essential ethics revealed in the Torah as applicable to Gentiles upon his followers. The rub comes for Jews–if it is now okay for a Jew who is “in Christ” and thus part of this new spiritual Israel, to fail to circumcise his or her children, to ignore observance of the Sabbath and the festivals, to eat anything set before them, and to generally “live as a Gentile” in terms of observing such marks of Torah observance then Paul’s position takes him outside of “Judaism” or observant Torah faith. Such a view implicitly leads to the abolition/replacement of the mother faith. It was upon that basis that the entire super-sessionist/replacement idea that became so current in Christianity developed. Paul takes the position in Romans 9 that any Jew who does not share his faith in Christ is “lost” and cut off from God, no matter what might be his or her spiritual devotion, Torah observance, or even reliance upon the grace of God.
Then there is the more “theological” matter of “justification by faith.” Judaism in all its forms has taught that all humans are sinners and can only be accepted in God’s eyes through repentance and faith. Psalm 51 would be the most classic expression of this, the Thanksgiving Hymns in the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect the same for the Qumran community, as strict was they were in their legal interpretations, and Rabbinic literature reflects the same. As a Jew Jesus expressed these very ideas when he speaks of the two men praying in the Temple, one of them a “sinner” who smites his breast and turns to God, and is thereby “justified,” and the other self-righteousness, thinking he had no need of justification (Luke 18:9-14).
E.P. Sanders’ study on Paul make it clear that the notion that Christianity depends on “grace” and Judaism on “works” is a terribly unfortunate “Protestant” misunderstanding of Judaism. What divides Paul from Judaism is his insistence that this grace bringing justification is only extended to those who accept his Christ faith. With these three elements based on Paul’s perceptions and heavenly visions: a new definition of Israel, the abrogation of the Sinai covenant, and the restriction of God’s grace to those who “accept Christ as savior,” we truly have a “new religion” and by no theological, cultural, or historical definition could it properly be called “Judaism.” And certainly Christians until our more recent ecumenical times would say “and rightly so!” Historic Christianity of all stripes and descriptions has embraced its replacement theology with pride and a head held high.
Paul is truly the hero of this way of thinking and only in recent times have scholars tried to “redeem” him from his own words in an effort to make him more politically correct vis-a-vis notions of ecumenism and tolerance. Countless books have been written in the past hundred years arguing that Paul is the “founder” of Christianity, sharply distinguishing him from Jesus.
Why was Paul Against Circumcision? as opposed to God instruct Abraham to circumcise...
Circumcision was and remains one of the most important markers of Jewish identity. It testifies both to Israel’s trust in God regarding its future and to God’s promise justifying that trust.
The question, therefore, is indeed a significant one: Why did the Apostle Paul oppose circumcision for Gentiles? After all, he expressed this opposition while professing to be a true Pharisee! (Acts 23:6) Yet this occurred after his encounter with the risen Jewish Christ.
The answer is not as complicated as it may first appear.
Apostle Paul, as most Jews during his lifetime, used the word “circumcision” as a code word for Jewish identity (Col. 4:11). While he thought that being a Judean was an advantage in many ways (Rom. 3:1-2), he still adamantly opposed Gentile proselyte conversion to Judaism. His reasoning resulted from a belief that something significant had happened – Gentiles had also become recipients of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Those receiving this gift from God were not converts to Judaism, but rather Gentile God-fearers not attempting to become Jews (Eph. 3:6; Acts 15:7-8).
If all Gentile Christ-followers were to go through the proselyte conversion and become Jews in every way, it would sabotage God’s cosmic plan of revealing himself to the world. Paul’s Pharisaic idea was simple: Judeans should stay Judeans and nations should stay nations. Both must unite in worship of the one true God (1 Cor. 7:17-20).
Why was Paul against circumcision? Because this true Jew held a strong conviction that the glory of Israel’s God must become known to the entire world! His God could not be the God of the Jews only, for he is simply too big for that (Rom. 3:29).
Jesus Hallucination Theory.
Jesus had been transported to Heaven not risen from the Dead.
Jesus appears many times in different places and Jesus appears to multiple, different person at different places in different time frames.
Since Jesus was risen be it lifted or be dead before the risen, many do belief that Jesus indeed rise to heaven... Only in Heaven everything is OK for truly some do belief that Heaven is a Place on Earth... Only In Heaven be it pig or wine or alcoholic beverages, heroine, cannabis will it be accepted by society. Not to mention having 72 virgins as mates to dwell upon. My Ohh My
Suzanne Somers - Horses' Urine Is Anti-Aging Secret
Camel pee vs Horse pee? In heaven even pee taste like Beer...
Thou shall build a nation of mankind on earth of different races and complexions and to learn of thee. [Earthlings].
Thou are banish for disobeying commands for eating the forbidden fruits. [To be expelled from the heavenly Kingdom Adam,Eve].
Thou shall built an Ark due to a great flood that is coming and upon it let there be a single male and female creatures on board for the new existence. [Noah of Ark].
Thou shall have a god among men thru a divine birth of the Virgin Mary. [Jesus of Nazareth].
Out of unconditional love for thee, thou shall bear a divine child even in Virginity for thee just have to say 'Be, and It is' ... Thee chooses the ONE. [Interaction between God on woman- Virgin Mary, as she is the chosen ONE].
Thou shall not kill, even thyself for thou has no rights to such actions. [Religion:- Killing & Suicide is forbidden for only God has its rights of destroying].
Thou are its creations and heaven awaits for the believers whereby for unbelievers thou shall be punish / banish in Hell to all eternity. [Abrahamic Faith, where mankind are doom to be part of its creation but not part of its creator cause there shall only be A God... There is No god but The God; Allah].
Thou shall cover thou skin from head to toe upon reaching puberty else it is a sin to bare one's hair or skin. [Abrahamic Faith:- For a woman before marriage, the sin will be cursed to his father whereby upon marriage, it will be the husband. An on pass sin from one person to the other].
Thou shall cut part of its skin located at the private parts area for purity and also to shave hairs from unneeded parts of the body. [People of the Book].
Thou shall only eat food slaughtered in God's name a.k.a Halal. [Recite:- In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate]
Thou shall built an Altar for a shrine for mankind to perform ritual rites and religious practice/traditions. [Prophet Abraham].
Thou (Dark Angel) shall be banish from heaven and be known as 'Iblis aka Satan' for challenging thee even though thee had mention:- 'thee knows what thou do not knows' but thou shall have the power and free will to deceive mankind. [People of the Book].
The Law of God with the highest Divinity must have been the law that states:- 'Let there be god among humans'. For the sacrifice is tremendous when ONE is left all Alone without a father and siblings to be with. To even communicate with a life form and to convince its presence? How does ONE endures its agony, lonesomeness and challenges? A greater pain for Virgin Mary to bear for carrying that child for 9 months due to a divine pregnancy before birth for she had to leave society and be by her own during that divine period. Being alone and to be of lonesomeness is all parts of its challenges for God does not resembles any of its creations or likeness as God is only ONE. To be ONE is to know and feel the sensation of oneness cause there is no one alike for thee is ONE and only.
Paul felt that Christianity should be for all, not only for Jews. So Paul started preaching Christianity to the gentiles and pagans. And to attract non-Jews to Christianity there should be a certain relaxing of the rules, so to speak.
Hence the need for circumcision and the banning of eating pork, as an example, which are a Jewish tradition and therefore also the tradition of the early Christians, should be reviewed. By Paul’s reckoning, non-Jew Christians should be exempted from circumcision and should be allowed to eat pork.
And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter’s ‘market’ was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the ‘market’ to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians.
Of course, there were more non-Jews than there were Jews. Hence, understandably, Paul’s movement expanded faster than Peter’s. Furthermore, while Peter focused on small Jewish communities, Paul travelled to the bigger non-Jewish cities where there were more people and therefore more potential converts.
And because Paul’s version of Christianity, so to speak, was more ‘liberal’ (for want of a better word) compared to Peter’s (which retained the strict Jewish taboos and traditions) more people followed Paul than Peter.
So, in conclusion to this is: if you are a follower of Peter, then pork should be haram for you (plus you should be circumcised) while, if you are a follower of Paul, then pork should be halal (and you only need to be baptised).
Comentários