Christians and Jews Under Islamic Law

[dolphinlove]

brother , i lives in egypt

firstly im a female
secondly, i know how easy it is to bury your head in the sand about such matters, must be very embarrassing to admit your government allows such things to happen

 

[dolphinlove]

You’ve misinterpreted the Scripture.

When the Lord told Peter to Rise. kill and eat. this was a metaphor and it is explained in the next few verses, if you studied the whole chapter (Acts 10) you would understand the principle. The reason behind the rise, kill ant eat was because it was unlawful for Jews to keep comapny with other nations Read Acts 10:28. This was literal to eat something whoch was unclean it was the Lords way of telling Peter that the gospel must also be preached to non-Jews.

The Matthew scripture is a metaphor also, you need to read from the beginning to understand whats being said. Originally the question of defiling arose because the Scribes and pharisees saw the disciple eating and they hadn’t washed their hands (which was a tradition of the elders)

Christ was trying to let the Scribes and pharisees see that their traditions (washing hands) did not take away from the fact that they were ungodly wicked people

V18 & V19 But those things which proceed out of the mouth cometh from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies

I’m not going to use the BIBLE to bash your views as God is not getting any glory from this. The BIBLE is clear, God never goes back on his word & he is not the author of confusion.

I have not misinterpreted the scripture
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

According to this, God is not telling us what to eat, he is telling us what comes out of our mouths defiles man, not what we put in. Its simple to understand.
I see your SDA, so the way we see things is different.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’ve misinterpreted the Scripture.

When the Lord told Peter to Rise. kill and eat. this was a metaphor and it is explained in the next few verses, if you studied the whole chapter (Acts 10) you would understand the principle. The reason behind the rise, kill ant eat was because it was unlawful for Jews to keep comapny with other nations Read Acts 10:28. This was literal to eat something whoch was unclean it was the Lords way of telling Peter that the gospel must also be preached to non-Jews.

The Matthew scripture is a metaphor also, you need to read from the beginning to understand whats being said. Originally the question of defiling arose because the Scribes and pharisees saw the disciple eating and they hadn’t washed their hands (which was a tradition of the elders)

Christ was trying to let the Scribes and pharisees see that their traditions (washing hands) did not take away from the fact that they were ungodly wicked people

V18 & V19 But those things which proceed out of the mouth cometh from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies

I’m not going to use the BIBLE to bash your views as God is not getting any glory from this. The BIBLE is clear, God never goes back on his word & he is not the author of confusion.

Then we should still be offering animal sacrifices? Men should not shave their beards? We should stone sinners?

There was a new covenant that fulfilled the old and changes were made according to God’s will.

Jer 31:31 Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord.

The old covenant was made void by men.

Mat 15:17 Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?

WHATSOEVER, is what Christ stated. Does this not include whatsoever?

Yes, Peter’s eyes had to be opened about the Gentiles. God used an example of foods, being the foods of Gentiles was different of that the Jews ate. This was a reason Jews used to forbid another Jew from entering the house of a Gentile, much less sitting at the table with them.

My friend, the interpretation I go by has been the interpretation used by the Church for over 2000 years. It grew out of the early Church and not a Church that grew out of the 1800s.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

brother , i lives in egypt

So, which muslim should we believe? The one that denies the jizya or the ones that have tried to justify it as a “tax” of protection.

Egypt does not deport non-muslims for simply giving a Bible to muslims? Egypt does not deport non-muslims for speaking about their faith with muslims?

Is Egypt the only Islamic state? Does Egypt have control over other Islamic states?

The jizya exists, as per the Koran, even today.

 

[Remnant_church]

Clearly this is a sign that you do not understand prophecy. if you did you would see Christ from Genesis and you would understand that the animal sacrifice was a sign of things yet to come (Christ also known as the Lamb being sacrificied for our sins)

God has never gone back on his word. The new covenant which is being saved by Grace and not by works (sacrifical system) was Gods loving way of restoring us onto him.

The church you claim to have the original interpretation somehow managed to change Gods 4th commandment. John 14 : 15 if ye love me, keep my commandments. I don’t follow the institution (as the church is responsible for thousands of death) i follow the BIBLE. Man is subject to error God isn’t - Romans 3 : 4 let God be true but every man a liar.

I will no longer particpate in this discussion so continue amongst yourselves. This is a topic which best studied in a bible study.

Being SDA has no relevance in the way i see things i choose to let the BIBLE be its own interpreter. SDA just happen to be one of the only churches i’ve come across keeping ALL 10 commandments

 

[tomarin]

Ive just gotten back from egypt not long ago, and found the Christians to be unfairly treated.

Just a quick clarification that may save us all some time: I’m not arguing that Christians are fairly treated in modern Egypt today. I pointed out that they are not allowed to hold certain positions of authority in the society, like top-level generals in the Egyptian military for example. Obviously there’s discrimination, some of it state-sanctioned.

What I’m saying specifically is that the traditional laws of dhimmitude are not in practice in Egypt today, because Egypt is not a traditional Islamic state. It is a majority Muslim country (note the distinction) which was founded on principles of secular Arab nationalism and so has more in common with modern European secular states than with those medieval Islamic states which practiced Shari’ah.

Furthermore there has been since the foundation of the Arab Republic of Egypt a disconnect between the majority of its pious citizens and the modernists who run the country. The traditionalists would like to see their government and its policies reflect their own values and heritage.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Clearly this is a sign that you do not understand prophecy. if you did you would see Christ from Genesis and you would understand that the animal sacrifice was a sign of things yet to come (Christ also known as the Lamb being sacrificied for our sins)

God has never gone back on his word. The new covenant which is being saved by Grace and not by works (sacrifical system) was Gods loving way of restoring us onto him.

See, I haven’t said God went back on His word. I pointed out with scriptures where man voided a covenant. Through the new and everlasting convenant, Christ became the sacraficial Lamb. Since we have found agreement there, how is it the food laws of the old covenant still pertain but, men shaving their beards does not? Did Christ not correct man’s interpretation of divorce? There were no changes at all by His fulfillment?

The prophesy in Jeremiah was repeated in Hebrews.

**Heb 8:7 For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For, finding fault with them, he saith: Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect, unto the house of Israel and unto the house of Juda, a new testament:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind: and in their heart will I write them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord. For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them.
Heb 8:12 Because I will be merciful to their iniquities: and their sins I will remember no more.
Heb 8:13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old is near its end. **

There are scriptures that hold multiple meanings, or prophecies, but it appears you clearly do not understand this.

The church you claim to have the original interpretation somehow managed to change Gods 4th commandment. John 14 : 15 if ye love me, keep my commandments. I don’t follow the institution (as the church is responsible for thousands of death) i follow the BIBLE. Man is subject to error God isn’t - Romans 3 : 4 let God be true but every man a liar.

I will no longer particpate in this discussion so continue amongst yourselves. This is a topic which best studied in a bible study.

Being SDA has no relevance in the way i see things i choose to let the BIBLE be its own interpreter. SDA just happen to be one of the only churches i’ve come across keeping ALL 10 commandments

Here’s the problem I see with your view. The Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God. Can this be said for men’s interpretations? No, otherwise we wouldn’t have so many denominations, with different doctrines, all based on someone’s interpretation of scriptures. The Catholic interpretation has lasted over 2000 years, the multi-denominational doctrines are, at best, around 500 years old, 1500 years later than the death and resurrection of our Lord and the first Church.

The scripture you provide affirms God’s word as inerrant and man’s interpretation as flawed.

Rom 3:4 But God is true and every man a liar, as it is written: That thou mayest be justified in thy words and mayest overcome when thou art judged.

Here’s one that tells of the dangers of private interpretation.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

The irony is, it appears you believe in sola scriptura, or private interpretation more specifically, yet you can tell another their interpretation is incorrect. Please tell me where scriptures tell us how to know which interpretation is correct? Show me the scriptures that says the Bible is to be privately interpreted? If it’s not in there, that is a man-made doctrine, tradition, or teaching.

Now, for the point you make about sinful men of the Church, does the SDA have no sinful people within it? You doubt Christ’s promise that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church if you think mere men succeeded in prevailing against it.

If the death of thousands, by the hands of men, makes you doubt God’s power, what about all the deaths in the Old Testament?

I’d be interested in seeing how you think the Catholic Church doesn’t keep ALL the 10 commandments.

Quitting a discussion because we do not agree with you, appears to be more a concession of not being able to overcome points and views presented, in my opinion. You throw out an insinuation that the Catholic Church does not keep ALL the 10 commandments and then want to avoid the discussion. That is not an honest attempt to discuss. It seems more an attempt to throw out an ad hominem and then refuse to address it.

 

[Sam_777]

Christians really shouldn’t be eating pork anyway!
Pork was declared a unclean meat in the OT. Why would you want to eat something God has declared unclean?

Welcome Remnant church to CAF , its interesting to know that about the teaching of the SDA Church, I’ve just read about it in wikipedia and I’m impressed by it teaching, its almost Islamic, some of the things that I liked are:

• The church discourages its members from the use of alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs.
• Recommends vegetarianism and expects adherence to the kosher laws in Leviticus 11.
• Consumption of the Lord’s Supper, which consists of unleavened bread and unfermented grape juice.
• Held socially conservative attitudes regarding dress and entertainment.
• Opposed to practices such as body piercing and tattoos.
• Adventists refrain from the wearing of jewelry altogether, including such items as earrings and bracelets.
• Traditionally Adventists dress semi-formally when attending church.
• Conservative Adventists also avoid certain recreational activities which are considered to be a negative spiritual influence, including dancing, rock music and secular theatre.

However, I personally will not eat pork nor consume alcohol when my flesh becomes Christian, and if I had to consume alcohol during the baptism, then I will consider that as a vaccine for me.

(1 Corinthians 6:12):
“Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not trying to change the subject, but I don’t understand the practice of using unfermented grape juice. Scriptures tell us the Lord used wine in the Lord’s supper. Scriptures also tell us the Lord drank wine.

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine. And you say: He hath a devil.
Luk 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking. And you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners.

The Greek used for “drinker of wine” was oinopotēs.

G3630
οἰνοπότης
oinopotēs
oy-nop-ot’-ace
From G3631 and a derivative of the alternate of G4095; a tippler: - winebibber.

**wine·bibber (wīn′bib′ər)

noun

a person given to drinking much or too much wine**

tip·ple 1 (tpl)
tr. & intr.v. tip·pled, tip·pling, tip·ples
To drink (alcoholic liquor) or engage in such drinking, especially habitually or to excess.

 

[elwill]

So, which muslim should we believe? The one that denies the jizya or the ones that have tried to justify it as a “tax” of protection.

Egypt does not deport non-muslims for simply giving a Bible to muslims? Egypt does not deport non-muslims for speaking about their faith with muslims?

Is Egypt the only Islamic state? Does Egypt have control over other Islamic states?

The jizya exists, as per the Koran, even today.

who denied the jizya ?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

who denied the jizya ?

I stand corrected. You did not deny the jizya, you did however provide a copy and paste from a blog that seems to minimize the intention of the jizya, from what is written in the Koran.

I had seen you question statements of dolphinlove and had taken the questioning to be denying, and thought it included denying the jizya was collected.

As for the statements of dolphinlove, Sam provided a response, but being it wasn’t in English, I couldn’t read what was said. I did notice you did not respond to his post that quoted your questioning dolphinlove’s statements.