Islam and Violence

No they can't have taken 1700 years. Christianity is only 1700 years old and the Renaissance was several centuries ago.

So Christianity took a thousand years. and that's from Constantine to the Renaissance.

So either Christianity is advanced or Islam is slow.

 

Islam contains volumes of writings to kill.
Volumes of writings on the deeds of the pervert Muhammed.

Christianity does not.

 

Are you agree with Christianity did have some violent times. Seems like it's a thousand years if of course were to assume that it became violent upon its Inception. I'm not so sure. I mean violence from that time. Might have been because of the law requiring Constantine's Nation to be Christian.

 

The violence was all brought on by the people in charge.

In Islam the violence is written into the religion.

 

Well they could ignore the violence take the approach the Christians did during the Renaissance. It just requires a level of maturity.

 

You are missing the whole thing.

Islam has volumes written on violence.
Muhammed was a terrorist.

Are you saying they need to take muhammed out of the religion.

 

no I'm not.

I saw that the first time I didn't miss it and I didn't argue against it.

or interpreted more metaphorically, like what the Christians did withwith violent parts of the Bible

 

There is no interpreting it, it is written very plainly.
Volumes of robbery, rape, and murder.
Orders for all time to kill non- believers.

Have you read it, no, You did not.. I have.

It's not like you are confusing what a verse says, you are reading an entire book.
an entire storyline.

 

well I doubt they're all just going to throw it away. so you really need to start thinking about a way to compromise.

No not completely.

 

what did you read about Muhammed.

 

Bits and pieces really. I don't really want to get enough flexing contest of who knows more about what I'll accept you know more about it.

That being said I doubt the Muslim world is just going to throw away the religion that doesn't seem to happen very often.

 

Bits and pieces what.
Out of the newspaper.

You didn't read any of it, or you would not have made the comments you did.

 

No from the Quran.

I wouldn't have said they would need to reinterpret violent parts of their dogma?

Why?

I do think Islam needs a Renaissance. Technically another one.

 

Dude.

Muhammed's not in the Qur'an.

 

I concede you know more about it than I do.

I was never arguing that with you.

 

What violent part of the New Testament?

 

Delete

 

That's funny you say just the New testament it's almost like you know how violent the old testament is

 

Or if you are a Christian who attends church all his life, you know that the 613 laws of moses are no longer valid.
No Christian church teaches them.
The ten commandments are valid,
Besides, that was Mathew and nobody knows who wrote it..
There are probably a dozen verses In the NT that explain removing the laws of the old.

 

The OT is Jewish, and even the Jews have evolved past the laws of 3000 years ago.

The coming of Christ, and Christianity re-wrote the religion.

 

That goes against the Bible, Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

in Matthew Jesus says the law. Not the ten commandments the law is Leviticus

then it contradicts Matthew 5:17 and the Bible is contradictory and useless.

 

Not when you consider the maginitude of the verses, all against one, that is controversial, and nobody knows who wrote it.

 

You're confusing two different religions. New Testament = New Covenant.

As Augustine said, the OT is the NT concealed, the NT is the OT revealed.

"The Old Testament points forward to the coming of the promised Redeemer, the Serpent-crusher of Genesis, the Prophet like Moses, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, the Son of David, the Messiah of Daniel, and the Humble King of Zechariah.

Four hundred years after God spoke to the prophet Malachi, God spoke again. The message was that the prophecy of Malachi 3:1 was soon to be fulfilled, that a prophet was to prepare the way for the Lord. The Messiah was on His way. That prophet was John the Baptist.

The New Testament Gospels reveal the promised Messiah, the Christ, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament. The New Testament is only completely understood in the light of the events, characters, laws, sacrificial system, covenants, and promises of the Old Testament. In this way the promises contained in the Old Testament are revealed in the New Testament."

 

If they evolve the way from the biblical teachings then they don't follow it. Numbers 23:19 Hebrews 13:8 and if you're Christian and you believe God changed between the old testament and the New testament then you're in contradiction with James 1:17.

that's odd because in Matthew 5:17 Jesus said it didn't.

 

Not really.

"The early church is unanimous in their acceptance of Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen all report Matthew as the writer of the First Gospel. Papias (c. AD 60-130) writes, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”[2] While we do not have a Hebrew or Aramaic edition of Matthew’s Gospel, there are reports that one may have existed in the early church.[3]Regardless, one should not be surprised that Matthew, who would need to have great knowledge of Greek in the business world, originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic, only to revise the Gospel in Greek. Even if his Gospel were written in Greek by another, even say an amanuensis,[4] this would not negate Matthew’s authorship. Craig Evans recently recorded a video where he claims that Matthew may have come about in phases.[5]

Pantaenus also confirmed that Matthew was the author of the First Gospel. The great church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, writes that Pantaenus, a church leader in the late 2nd to possibly early 3rd century, came across the Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel. Eusebius notes that Pantaenus was “a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria.”[6] The following is Eusebius’s report of Pantaenus’s encounter with the Hebrew edition of Matthew’s Gospel:

“It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,6 which they had preserved till that time.”[7]

With the addition of Origen and Irenaeus’s acceptance of Matthew writing the First Gospel, one is hard-pressed to dismiss their claims.

In addition, scholars acknowledge that Matthew’s name was associated with the First Gospel from the earliest times. The writers of the CSB Study Bible denote that “the title that ascribes this Gospel to Matthew appears in the earliest manuscripts and is possibly original. Titles became necessary to distinguish one Gospel from another when the four Gospels began to circulate as a single collection.”[8]

Brian Chilton