The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> about the sword

about the sword
Posted by AssyrianMuslim (Guest) - Saturday, May 17 2008, 9:02:52 (CEST)
from 74.128.146.151 - 74-128-146-151.dhcp.insightbb.com Commercial - Windows Codename Longhorn - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

I am not taking the verses out of context but I have made sure to read it over and over and have it re checked with few Christians from various churches. The issue is not about Jesus preaching to go murder people. This I already know before any Christian because no prophet from God would allow or promote injustice. So that is not the issue here, but the issue is that you called your lord the "prince of peace" and I am saying that he himself did not call himself that. He is recorded to have clarified that he has not come to bring peace to the world. If you say that I am taking it out of context or not understanding it, then that problem lies with the Bible itself because it is long noticed that it leads itself to too many different interpretations. It is not a secret that different denominations understand something from the Bible differently.

If you say that he wasn't serious, then I could fairly say that he wasn't serious when he preached "peace". I know that Jesus(as) didn't preach to go murder people or be unjust to others but from the Gospels we can get all kinds of different ideas. It is acknowledged that the 4 Gospels in the Bible give a different picture of Jesus. In one Gospel he is shy and humble and another he is displayed as arrogant, outspoken and aggressive. In one place he is one way and in another he is another way. The truth is that Christians have never agreed with one another on the Bible and every denomination or church get different understandings from the same verse. So I am not disputing that Jesus was a pious person but I am saying that there are verses in there where he is not calling himself "prince of peace" and you will say I am not understanding it. In my last talk on this verse with another fellow Christian friend of mine, the brother clarified to me that the mission of our "lord was not bring peace anyways". We also know that he didn't invent peace because it was already there long before.

People always lived in peace or were at war because we have "choices". True prophets of God are pious men sent to mankind for certain purposes but that don't mean they can't defend themselves or be at war. The issue with Jesus is different because there is conflict between the Biblical version of the stories and events and with historical writings of the time from outsaide the Bible. As for Jesus telling Peter to put away the sword, did you forget that he was the one who ordered them to get the swords in first place. Didn't he tell them,"whoever does not have a sword buy one" and they did just that. Whenever I ask the Christians about this passage, they feel uncomfortable and their usual answer is that they were "spiritual swords" and not real.

"If the swords weren't real but "spiritual" then how did peter chop of the ear of one of the soldiers? Was that "spiritual too" or was it real. They were obviously real swords and swords are for fighting and not for peeling apples or bananas. The bottom line is that Jesus is recorded to have ordered his students to buy swords and he knew that swords were weapons for fighting. Please don't tell me that the wise Jesus didn't know that swords are for fighting and that he later said "put up the sword, for he who lives by the sword will die by the sword". Did he not know or think about that before he ordered them to do so? That is when the Christian will search for another answer and will say "it was to fullfil scripture". Well, in that case it means that Jesus had to contradict himself in order to "fullfil the scriptures".

So it is not my problem but the problem lies within the Bible itself and how it leads itself to well too many different interpretations. A perfect example is the "baptism" ritual. In the Gospel of Matthew, poor Jesus is recorded to have ordered to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". However, in the book of "Acts" we are told that baptism is to be done in the name of "Jesus". So today there are huge disputes over this within Christendom as some Christians baptize in the name of the Trinity while others in the name of "Jesus". This contoversy is from the Bible itself and who can we blame? Is it my lack of understanding or the fault of the authors of the books? You say I don't understand and the same will be said about ytou if you come around other Christians. Don't even dare call yourself a "Christian" in front of some Christians because they'll get outraged. The point is that every one will say something different and tell the other person that they are not understanding it.

I know the Quran is clear to "be just" but at the same time we know what to do in a time of war. There is no around the bush bullshit or its "just spiritual fighting" with the Quran. We are told to be patient, to be justly, forgive but we are also told to stand up for the oppressed, and do what is right. The Quran is clear on war, peace, and everything else. Sure there are those who will try to get different understandings and certain passages which may be uncertain but it is clear in its over all message, rituals, acts of worship, behaviour and everything else. It is sad but true that there isn't another book like the Bible which is so unclear and that it can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. I gurantee you that I can go in there and find something to which I could even create a "prophecy" about myself if I wanted to. That is just what kind of book it is and you can't really charge me with not understanding it because Christians say that about everyone else else too.

I am not going to debate with you about this but the topic was about the apology and that still stands that I was wrong for using foul language against you and I had to aplogize to you for that, but I don't feel the need to have to apologize to what I have said about Christianity because I didn't slander or lie about it. I respect and have love for Isa al Massih Ibn Maryam al Rasulullah. His mother Maryam is given the highest honor of women in the Quran. She is the only mentioned by name in the Quran, there is a chapter named after her and she is referred to as "above other women". The same goes for Jesus who is very special to Muslims and very well respected. It is not Jesus that we are talking about but Christianity and we are not trying to attack Christianity or Christians because they are the "nearest in love to us Muslims". This fact can be observed on how the pious and sincere Christians have always embraced the Muslims and recognize the message of the Quran as confirmation of their own faith. So I am not trying to war with Jesus or his religion because we believe his religion to be the same as ours except that he was sent to "Bani Israel" in particular.

Anyways, I aplogize ones again for using the dirty language to you and may God Bless you InshaAllah and guide you to the straight path and everyone else, Ameen.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 7364
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-ms-application, application/vnd.ms-xpsdocument, appli...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?.3DHj.
Ua-cpu: x86
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; Z...



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9