1. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    06 Oct '08 06:14
    I think it's possible that:
    1. God spoke to the Jews through the Torah
    2. God spoke to the Christians through the New Testement
    3. God spoke to the Muslems through the Quran
    (Sorry if I misspelled anything)
    Does this sound resonable??

    🙂
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Oct '08 09:02
    Originally posted by bill718
    I think it's possible that:
    1. God spoke to the Jews through the Torah
    2. God spoke to the Christians through the New Testement
    3. God spoke to the Muslems through the Quran
    (Sorry if I misspelled anything)
    Does this sound resonable??

    🙂
    No. It sounds utterly ridiculous. Unless the God you are talking about loves creating confusion and conflict for his own personal amusement.
  3. At the Revolution
    Joined
    15 Sep '07
    Moves
    5073
    06 Oct '08 20:40
    Originally posted by bill718
    I think it's possible that:
    1. God spoke to the Jews through the Torah
    2. God spoke to the Christians through the New Testement
    3. God spoke to the Muslems through the Quran
    (Sorry if I misspelled anything)
    Does this sound resonable??

    🙂
    That's not just one religion to scoff at; now it's mixing three!! Wow! How much more illogical can you get?
  4. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    07 Oct '08 00:36
    Originally posted by bill718
    I think it's possible that:
    1. God spoke to the Jews through the Torah
    2. God spoke to the Christians through the New Testement
    3. God spoke to the Muslems through the Quran
    (Sorry if I misspelled anything)
    Does this sound resonable??

    🙂
    There is a similar concept held in the Bahai Faith. Though instead of God speaking through books, God has intervened in the progress of humans through "messengers" including Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, etc. This is described as a succession of revelations from God. The term "progressive revelation" is used to describe this process. I'm far from sure, but I think Islam may have a similar concept.

    You can find an overview here:
    http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-4.html
  5. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    07 Oct '08 00:402 edits
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    There is a similar concept held in the Bahai Faith. Though instead of God speaking through books, God has intervened in the progress of humans through "messengers" including Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, etc. This is described as a succession of revelations from God. The term "progressive revelation" is used to describe this process. lar concept.

    You can find an overview here:
    http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-4.html
    It also discussed in progressive Roman Catholic theology, called the theory
    of the anonymous Christian. While unsurprisingly narcissistic, it's progenitor,
    Father Karl Rahner, maintains that those who follow other religions yet adhere
    to the basic sentiment of loving God and loving neighbor are de facto Christians.
    Since they are not in nomine Christians, he calls them 'Anonymous Christians.'

    Nemesio

    Edit: By narcissistic, I mean that it works of the presumption that Christianity
    is the 'rightest' of the religions. That is, it's not the theory of the 'Anonymous
    Moslem,' or 'Anonymous Buddhist,' e.g..
  6. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    07 Oct '08 01:051 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    I think it's possible that:
    1. God spoke to the Jews through the Torah
    2. God spoke to the Christians through the New Testement
    3. God spoke to the Muslems through the Quran
    (Sorry if I misspelled anything)
    Does this sound resonable??

    🙂
    Its interesting that wise men from the east (not sure where from) came to visit Jesus when he was born, obviously guided by God. I think its likely that many other religious groups at the time must have known about Christ. There is also a period of the life of Christ - about 16 years which is not recorded in the Bible. Its likely that he would have travelled to other places and preached to other people.

    Here is an passage which I brought up before here but its somewhat difficult to interpret :

    Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
    12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
    13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
    14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
    15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
    16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


    It seems to be saying that Gentiles not under the law (commandments of Christ, I presume), can do the works of the law because their conscience is their guide. The passage implies that they will be judged according their law as long as its not in conflict with the commandments of Christ. Just my speculating.
  7. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    07 Oct '08 01:18
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Its interesting that wise men from the east (not sure where from) came to visit Jesus when he was born, obviously guided by God. I think its likely that many other religious groups at the time must have known about Christ. There is also a period of the life of Christ - about 16 years which is not recorded in the Bible. Its likely that he would have travelled ...[text shortened]... g their law as long as its not in conflict with the commandments of Christ. Just my speculating.
    There's also a group of people who think that Jesus actually survived crucifixion
    and, after the what are called the post-Resurrection appearances, He moved
    east, all the way to Japan.

    Nemesio
  8. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    07 Oct '08 01:25
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    There's also a group of people who think that Jesus actually survived crucifixion
    and, after the what are called the post-Resurrection appearances, He moved
    east, all the way to Japan.

    Nemesio
    Never heard that story.
    Do you have an opinion on the Romans 2 passage ?
  9. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    07 Oct '08 03:193 edits
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    It seems to be saying that Gentiles not under the law (commandments of Christ, I presume), can do the works of the law because their conscience is their guide. The passage implies that they will be judged according their law as long as its not in conflict with the commandments of Christ.
    I don't think so. Keep in mind that St Paul was a very well educated Jew who, clearly, knew the
    Law. When Jews refer to 'The Law,' they mean the Levitical Law -- the 600 some-odd proscriptions
    and commandments about what to eat, what to wear, how to behave in circumstances and so forth.
    An individual raised in a Jewish family would have learned this Law by attrition from their parents
    and community.

    Keep in mind that St Paul assumed the parousia was imminent and was committed to an inclusive
    idea of salvation (the idea of including 'goyim' amongst the saved). So, in order not to discourage
    the Gentiles, he taught that it was unnecessary for Gentiles to learn and subsequently obey all
    600+ Laws from Hebrew Scripture. The most obviously divisive one was circumcision (and for
    obvious reason!).

    This ties in with St Paul's discussions in Galatians and elsewhere, in which it seems clear that
    St Peter and associates were trying to compel newly converted, non-Jewish believers to embrace
    the whole of the Law or to exclude them entirely. St Paul believed that it was foolish to do so:
    Jesus was coming soon, and it would silly to not build up the kingdom with those who were
    not reasonably able to learn and obey all of those laws, especially since Jesus was believed to
    be coming back within the lifetime of the Disciples and that the Laws which were meant to
    address issues of corporeal purity were going to be moot shortly in any event as the spirit was
    whisked away with Jesus.

    That's how I understand St Paul's writing in that passage.

    Nemesio
Back to Top