Moses and the 10 Commandments

[qwerk]

From the dedicated research of respected Biblical scholars at BibleGateway.com, we can see that there is considerable doubt when it comes to the question of the true mission of Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do NOT have Mark 16:9-20.))…

… And so, which of the following Biblical verses is more likely to be true?

EITHER

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to ALL creation… Mark 16:15

OR

“I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.” … (Matthew 15:24)

and also

“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” … (Matthew 10:5-6)

OR. perhaps Christians are saying that there is NO contradiction between the above Biblical verses found in Mark and Matthew?

It makes absolutely no sense at all that Prophet Jesus would spend the entire period of his ministry preaching to the lost sheep of Israel only and then immediately after his alleged crucifixion orders his disciples to go to all nations and preach to all people.

If the divine message that he brought was intended for all of humankind, then why didn’t he declare it in no uncertain terms right from the beginning of his mission like what Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did?

If I were to accept the Christian explanation that it was all part of the grand strategy of Almighty God, then I would have to conclude that Jesus … and by extension God Himself… intentionally lied when he said “I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel” in Matthew 15:24.

I just cannot accept that it was necessary for Jesus , or any of the Prophets of God , to lie or tell half-truths regarding their mission because this is something which clearly breaks one of the Ten Commandments not to bear false witness… and is not the faithful adherence to the Ten Commandments what this thread is all about?

How on earth is it possible that a true Prophet of God will intentionally break any of the Commandments in order to spread the Message of the Lord?

There is really no doubt whatsoever that Prophet Jesus was indeed sent only to the lost sheep of Israel because this is the only scenario which makes logical and perfect sense.

We keep talking about the same thing over and over again. I am not going to keep on going over the same thing - it gets tiring and if someone else wants to keep up lessons in futility with you, then they can go for it.

As for this statement, 'How on earth is it possible that a true Prophet of God will intentionally break any of the Commandments in order to spread the Message of the Lord? - I find it amusing that you would follow Muhammad if you have that sort of a thought. He broke so many commandments that it is dizzying. I also wrote about that many times, maybe on different threads, but it seems that the same people are on the same threads and that includes the Muslims.

As for logic and sense, Islam isn’t it. As for using one sentence that I have already explained twice to you, the logic and sense of it is only a convenient thing that you want to take to use for your own purpose.

Personally, use it as you will. I think you are not here to discuss but to try to give us the call to Islam and to do your ‘good deed(s)’ so you feel balanced for the day. that is all and nothing more.

You have a lot of postings, as does planten, and the way the discussions go with you I fully suspect you have been told these things a lot of times before.

 

[hamba2han]

If the detractors of Islam were absolutely honest about it, they would concede that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not do any “immoral” acts which the earlier Prophets of God (peace be upon them all) did not also do.

I have used the " " sign when using the word “immoral” because the question of morality is the sole prerogative of the Creator, NOT the creations.

And how do the creations know what is moral or not? → They need to refer to the scriptures for guidance.

And I repeat, there are no “immoral” acts that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did which the earlier Prophets have not also done.

 

[qwerk]

If the detractors of Islam were absolutely honest about it, they would concede that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not do any “immoral” acts which the earlier Prophets of God (peace be upon them all) did not also do.

I have used the " " sign when using the word “immoral” because the question of morality is the sole prerogative of the Creator, NOT the creations.

And how do the creations know what is moral or not? → They need to refer to the scriptures for guidance.

And I repeat, there are no “immoral” acts that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did which the earlier Prophets have not also done.

Torture? Murder just because they were not of the same religion? Lie? Steal? Nope - those are a few things that are Muhammad’s alone. You can keep repeating stupid stuff but that doesn’t make it true.

sorry, but you are in lala land. Muhammad is the most immoral man that I know of who started up a religion based on his immoral actions and words.

By trying to say you are not responsible for immorality of yourself, that is the most ludicrist thing I have ever read. And I NEVER want to read from you that anyone else is immoral knowing the in Islam it is all about labels.

And this goes to one of the basic problems in Islam, Allah is NOT YHWH. By following Allah (Quran) you think it is ok to do immoral acts and are telling me that it is ok because Allah said it is ok. YHWH (Bible) told us the opposite and told us many times in the Bible that to have someone tell us to break the least of his commandments in the least in His eyes.

 

[Loboto-Me]

It means ‘peace be upon him’. On websites that I am not restricted, or on Facebook, I have used other words that begin with a ‘p’.

I had to laugh out loud on this comment. It could also pass as a strong accent that you have right?

Last sunday at Mass it occured to me about this “pumba” (that’s how I tend to read it when I see those letters lol). Anyway, when the Glory Be came along I said to myself that we should perhaps put a (gthf) behind the name of Jesus (Glory to Him forever), just to show that Jesus doesn’t need to be “peaced upon” because He IS Peace and love… rather, he is to be glorified.

 

[qwerk]

I had to laugh out loud on this comment. It could also pass as a strong accent that you have right?

Last sunday at Mass it occured to me about this “pumba” (that’s how I tend to read it when I see those letters lol). Anyway, when the Glory Be came along I said to myself that we should perhaps put a (gthf) behind the name of Jesus (Glory to Him forever), just to show that Jesus doesn’t need to be “peaced upon” because He IS Peace and love… rather, he is to be glorified.

That is not a bad idea about the gthf.

 

[Jack_Catholic]

Dear hamba2han,

Thank you for continuing to discuss the issue of the verse from Matthew chapter 15 with me. My post is in response to yours, posting number 17.

You seem to insist that Jesus came only for the lost children of Israel. I’ve explained that the Catholic Church since the very days after the ressurection of Jesus has understood that Jesus did indeed come for all of mankind.

Please go back and analyze my explanation of the Matthew Chapter 15 story (in which the verse is found) in reference to the training of the Apostles and their “Jews above others” mindset, and in reference to the meaning of Jesus’ action. How did this not make sense or seem unbelievable to you?

You mention that Jesus’ choice to pick only Jews as Apostles is evidence that Jesus only came to the Jews. I’d like to point out that non-Jews at the time pretty much disliked the Jews because of their dogged faith (as a people) in Allah. Granted, there are times when their faith wavered and Allah had to draw them back to Him again. Yet considering the pagan gentile attitude tward the Jews and their faith in Allah, it wouldn’t really make sense to pick gentiles who new nothing of Allah to train up into church leaders. Jesus had only three years to accomplish his mission. Jesus chose men who already had loyalty to Allah, and then he bagan to train them, to challange their faults and beliefs so as to shape them for their new job.

I am a teacher, and I know that in the classroom we must teach more than reading, writing, and arithmetic. In order for children to get along and work together successfully, we teachers must challange their character. Sometimes this means playing the part of antagonist to provoke them. The slang term here in the United States of America for this part to play is, “devil’s advocate.” Was Jesus lying when he said he came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel? If he was indeed a teacher, a “rabbi”, then no, of course not. He was simply playing “devils advocate.” The best way to teach is to get a person to look within themselves and put together what they already know to draw a conclusion which you would like to be the lesson. To simply tell a person the message of the lesson does not guarantee that he or she will consider it important enough to remember or adjust life for. But to discover after having an emotional struggle guarantees that the lesson will remain with the student. Remember, Jesus was training these Apostles to carry on his mission to the ends of the earth, to face hardships, hostile peoples, and even death. With only three years to teach, Jesus had to be sure the lessons would hit home with the 12 Apostles and remain with them for life. I assert here that Jesus was not lying, but playing “devil’s advocate” when he said for all to hear that he had come only for the lost members of the house of Israel. Incidentally, by playing “devil’s advocate” to correct the Apostles’ typical Jewish belief about Jews being better than non-Jews, Jesus truly did reach at least 12 lost members of the house of Israel (the Apostles)…

Another point here can be made by studying the parent-child relationship. I believe the Qur’an says something about Allah’s creation reflecting the truth that Allah has taught us. Parents know that it is not enough to tell a child what he must know and how he must behave. The message must be backed up with parent example, with acts of discipline (even to the point of spanking and such), basically must be backed up with “action.” The grandparents of my generation used to say that children do not listen to what you say, but they hear loudly and clearly what you do. Another version of this saying is, “Your actions speak so loudly that I cannot hear what you are saying.” When this saying and lesson of parents and children is applied to Jesus words and actions with the Cannanite woman in Matthew 15, it becomes clearer still that Jesus did not intend that the Apostles, or even his own ministry, be reserved only for the Jews. His actions speak louder than his words, and his actions show care and mission for both the Jews (12 Apostles) and the non-Jews (Cannanite woman and her daughter).

(to be continued)

Salam Alaikom,

Jack Catholic

 

[Jack_Catholic]

Dear hamab2han,

(Continued)

I’d like to mention some othe verses not to broaden the discussion into a monster of information, but simply to show that the Gospels of the Holy Bible do show more instances of action, and teaching that seems to show that Jesus: 1) wants his ministry carried to Gentiles as well as Jews, and 2) tries to destroy in the minds of the Apostles the idea that the Jews are the elite and that Jesus came only for them.

Jesus further teaches against the “Jews-above-other-peoples” attitude when he tells the story of the good Samaritan, the only one of three travelers who would care for a man attacked by robers and left for dead in the road.

Also in Matthew 3:9 and Luke 3:8 John the Evangelist tells the Jews that their being descendents (children) of Abraham does not set them above others, but that Allah could raise up children for Abraham from even the stones if He wanted to. This is, when taken with much of what Jesus did and taught, a message to the Jews that they alone do not have the sole attention of Allah.

John 4:1-42 tells the story of Jesus approaching a non-Jewish woman at a well, and after evangelizing her, he responds to the masses of people from the Samaritan city who came seeking him by agreeing to stay with them. Verse 41 tells us in reference to the non-Jews of the Samaritan city that “…many more believed because of His own word.” This is contrasted in verse 44 with Luke 4:24 (practically exactly the same wording) when Jesus went to a synagogue in his home town of Nazareth and, after reading from the book of Isaiah and calling the people to accept him and his teachings, they tried to grab him and throw him off a cliff. The message in the comparrison, clearly intended to be made by the verse in John 4:44 and Luke 4:24 is for the Apostles to have no barriers against going out to the non-Jews to preach the Good News and convert them. Incidentally, if you are of a mind to reading the story in Luke, it is Luke 4:16-30.

I know you have been taught by non-Christians about the Holy Bible, a Jewish-Christian book, and that it says that Jesus only came for the Jews of his time. But I invite you to also study it under the teaching guidance of the Church responsible for compiling it, preserving it, and teaching it’s meaning, the Catholic Church. Perhaps you might come to see things you never knew were in it. But do at least please consider rereading my previouse post about the verse in Matthew 15. Perhaps you can point out how the context of the story, and the context of the 4 gospels I have listed in this post fails to show clearly that Jesus did indeed come for all of us and not just the Jews.

Again, thanks so much for responding to my posts. I am enjoying greatly the chance to discuss Islamic and Christian understanding of the Holy Bible and what it tells us about Jesus in comparison to what the Holy Qur’an tells us. I look forward to reading your future posts.

Salam Alaikom,

Jack Catholic

 

[qwerk]

Dear hamab2han,

(Continued)

I’d like to mention some othe verses not to broaden the discussion into a monster of information, but simply to show that the Gospels of the Holy Bible do show more instances of action, and teaching that seems to show that Jesus: 1) wants his ministry carried to Gentiles as well as Jews, and 2) tries to destroy in the minds of the Apostles the idea that the Jews are the elite and that Jesus came only for them.

Jesus further teaches against the “Jews-above-other-peoples” attitude when he tells the story of the good Samaritan, the only one of three travelers who would care for a man attacked by robers and left for dead in the road.

Also in Matthew 3:9 and Luke 3:8 John the Evangelist tells the Jews that their being descendents (children) of Abraham does not set them above others, but that Allah could raise up children for Abraham from even the stones if He wanted to. This is, when taken with much of what Jesus did and taught, a message to the Jews that they alone do not have the sole attention of Allah.

John 4:1-42 tells the story of Jesus approaching a non-Jewish woman at a well, and after evangelizing her, he responds to the masses of people from the Samaritan city who came seeking him by agreeing to stay with them. Verse 41 tells us in reference to the non-Jews of the Samaritan city that “…many more believed because of His own word.” This is contrasted in verse 44 with Luke 4:24 (practically exactly the same wording) when Jesus went to a synagogue in his home town of Nazareth and, after reading from the book of Isaiah and calling the people to accept him and his teachings, they tried to grab him and throw him off a cliff. The message in the comparrison, clearly intended to be made by the verse in John 4:44 and Luke 4:24 is for the Apostles to have no barriers against going out to the non-Jews to preach the Good News and convert them. Incidentally, if you are of a mind to reading the story in Luke, it is Luke 4:16-30.

I know you have been taught by non-Christians about the Holy Bible, a Jewish-Christian book, and that it says that Jesus only came for the Jews of his time. But I invite you to also study it under the teaching guidance of the Church responsible for compiling it, preserving it, and teaching it’s meaning, the Catholic Church. Perhaps you might come to see things you never knew were in it. But do at least please consider rereading my previouse post about the verse in Matthew 15. Perhaps you can point out how the context of the story, and the context of the 4 gospels I have listed in this post fails to show clearly that Jesus did indeed come for all of us and not just the Jews.

Again, thanks so much for responding to my posts. I am enjoying greatly the chance to discuss Islamic and Christian understanding of the Holy Bible and what it tells us about Jesus in comparison to what the Holy Qur’an tells us. I look forward to reading your future posts.

Salam Alaikom,

Jack Catholic

Can you tell me what is holy about the Quran?

 

[Jack_Catholic]

Dear Qwerk,

I’m getting worried…

Jack Catholic

 

[qwerk]

Dear Qwerk,

I’m getting worried…

Jack Catholic

About what?

 

[Jack_Catholic]

Dear hamba2han,

Did you read my lengthy, two part response? Can you still say with this mountain of correlating evidence that Matthew 15 is proof positive that Jesus was sent only for the Jews? About the verse in Matthew 15, this is the question of this string of posts. What do you say?

Thanks again for all your posts in this string,

Jack Catholic

 

[hamba2han]

Dear hamba2han,

Did you read my lengthy, two part response? Can you still say with this mountain of correlating evidence that Matthew 15 is proof positive that Jesus was sent only for the Jews? About the verse in Matthew 15, this is the question of this string of posts. What do you say?

Thanks again for all your posts in this string,

Jack Catholic

It is an article of faith that a Muslim believes that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was one of the mightiest Messengers of God and that he performed many miracles through the Grace of the Lord.

Muslims have no problem at all in believing the miracles of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and that the Message that he brought came from Allah the Almighty.

However, the thing here is that Muslims do not see anything wrong at all in him being sent only for the lost sheep of Israel because it does not detract in any way his divine mission as a Messenger of God.

And let us not forget an important point here, Muslims believe that the life and mission of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is yet to be completed because he will return to destroy the anti-Christ and unite and rule the world according to the Commands of the Lord.

And so, the question of whether Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel is only relevant for the period when he first arrived some 2000 years ago, NOT for the future and Muslims and Christians can agree on this point i.e. he will definitely be relevant for the whole world at a hitherto unknown time in the future and not just for the lost sheep of Israel.

 

[hamba2han]

Torture? Murder just because they were not of the same religion? Lie? Steal? Nope - those are a few things that are Muhammad’s alone. You can keep repeating stupid stuff but that doesn’t make it true.

sorry, but you are in lala land. Muhammad is the most immoral man that I know of who started up a religion based on his immoral actions and words.

By trying to say you are not responsible for immorality of yourself, that is the most ludicrist thing I have ever read. And I NEVER want to read from you that anyone else is immoral knowing the in Islam it is all about labels.

And this goes to one of the basic problems in Islam, Allah is NOT YHWH. By following Allah (Quran) you think it is ok to do immoral acts and are telling me that it is ok because Allah said it is ok. YHWH (Bible) told us the opposite and told us many times in the Bible that to have someone tell us to break the least of his commandments in the least in His eyes.

I once started a thread asking Christians on how they would determine whether something is morally right or wrong.

The point that I wish to reiterate again is that there is nothing that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did that can be considered “immoral” according to the teachings found in the Bible.

 

[qwerk]

I once started a thread asking Christians on how they would determine whether something is morally right or wrong.

The point that I wish to reiterate again is that there is nothing that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did that can be considered “immoral” according to the teachings found in the Bible.

You don’t read do you? I have very little confidence that you read the Bible, but only take verses from it to try to prove your point. The verses are warped so badly by you.

Nowhere is there an order to keep on killing for the God of Israel in order to get to heaven. It might tell of a few wars, but God did not make holy killing others for killing’s sake. Instead He gave us a commandment through Moses, Thou Shalt Not Kill. He allowed the Israelites to defend themselves. He did not call for raids, or wars against others just to gather goods and slaves. He did not warp the meaning of war to include ‘if they do not accept the call of Judaism, then wage war against them. It is their fault there is war due to their reluctance.’.

One that I find Muslims do all the time is: Thou Shalt Not Take The Name of the Lord in Vain. Telling others that God said to kill, trying to use the Bible as their justification , is doing just that - taking the name of the Lord in Vain. Islam puts new meaning to that word. I used to think it only meant cursing, but it means something more to me now especially after reading your last post. And especially if you want to keep insisting that Allah is the God of Israel. I don’t think that at all but I have read your scriptures.

The idea that Muhammad should be emulated is also a warped thinking. A man who couldn’t control himself in regards to his own son’s wife. There is a commandment against doing that too.

Islam has redefined moral and immorality. Using the Bible to justify your redefinitions is outrageous. It shows us another way that Islam can’t stand on its own. It calls the Bible corrupt then needs the Bible to justify immoralities.

 

[qwerk]

Ironic that you take what you need, but probably didn’t read these:

Matthew 24
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many.

Matthew 24
24 For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.

And lastly - this one about the koran:

Galatians 1
8 - But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!

9 - As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

 

[Jack_Catholic]

Dear hamba2han,

Hi, and thanks again for responding to my post. I have presented a great deal of understanding and insight from the church regarding the verse in Matthew 15 and its context. All of this evidence seems to be pointing toward Jesus intending that his ministry be carried on for all humanity, even shows Jesus reaching out to others not members of the Jewish people or nation. Since Islam seems to have gotten the story on this verse of Christian scripture wrong, what does this mean for other messages that Islam promotes about the true nature of Jesus or Christianity? This is a question that must be answered. All of Islam must answer this question. I challange you, hama2han, to look seriously at other teachings of Islam about Jesus, and then look at what the Catholic Church teaches about the evidence that Islam uses. I challange you to look not just at the claims, but also at the evidence that the Catholic Church has compiled to make it’s claims. We must all stuggle to learn the truth about Allah so that our faith and obedience will be governed by truth.

Since Islam seems to have gotten the story on this verse of Christian scripture wrong, what does this mean for other messages that Islam promotes about the true nature of Jesus or Christianity? This question demands an answer.

Salaam Alaikom,

Jack Catholic