Random Politics & Religion #00

Oh, is it inauguration day 2009 already?

Paul....

Once again I would remind you that both historians and theologians refer to Christianity as the Paulian heresy.

Only by a small number, usually with an axe to grind.

Jesus had many followers and they didn't all agree on the specifics of his teachings. After Jesus's death they split up and spread slightly different variations of it which resulting in different brands and sets of followers. Hundreds of years later, long after Paul's death, Paul's teachings had become the most popular and were used as the core tenants during the canonization.

If Paul did not know Jesus while He lived on this earth, then how can Paul have any authority to teach and preach the Gospel?

Though Paul did not walk with Jesus while he was on this earth, he did receive approval from the followers of Jesus. In Galatians, chapters 1-2, Paul explains that he took two different trips to Jerusalem to see the Jerusalem apostles.1

Trip #1: A.D. 36

In his first trip, Paul mentions the most popular apostles by name: Peter and James. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul says,

"Then three years later [A.D. 36?] I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas [or Peter], and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother."

If Paul and Peter spent fifteen days together, they must have discussed some very important matters! I wish that I could have been a fly on the wall to hear Paul and Peter's conversation. What a sight that must have been! As one scholar stated, they probably did not spend all of their time talking about the weather. It is quite likely that given the context of Galatians 1 where Paul is discussing his authority to preach the gospel that Peter and Paul discussed the content of the Gospel during their time together.

Trip #2: A.D. 47-50

However, Paul also mentions a second trip to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1-2:

"Then after an interval of fourteen years [47-50 A.D.?] I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain."

In this second visit, Paul mentions that he explicitly brought his gospel before the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James, and John). He indicates that he had a fear "that I might be running--or had run--in vain." Some have speculated that Paul wanted to verify the content of his preaching to be sure that he was correct. Therefore, he goes up to Jerusalem a second time to see Peter, James, and then John.

Interestingly, the apostles respond:

"And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised, (Gal. 2:9)."

In other words, the early apostles agreed with Paul's gospel that he preached.

The Ultimate Authority

Even though Paul had approval from the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, nevertheless, Paul claimed that his ultimate authority did not come from humans but directly from Christ's revelation to him:

"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ, (Gal. 1:11-12)."

Paul himself saw Jesus via revelation on his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9, 22, 26) in which Christ revealed Himself to Paul. He was an eyewitness in the sense of having seen Jesus after His death (1 Cor. 9:1). Therefore, Paul certainly had the authority to teach and preach the Gospel.

A few pages ago I mentioned that Islam hasn't yet gone through the reformation that Christianity did, specifically the Roman Catholic Church. It took an opportunistic English king, backed by an angry resentful population to finally break the back of the catholic church, and it was still a very long time until their power was completely broken. The same thing needs to happen in Islam, it will come and when it does it's going to be extremely bloody.

Tashfeen Malik, the Pakistani woman involved in the California mass shooting last week, may have influenced her American husband toward violence, said Representative Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Sunday.

Malik's relatives in Pakistan have said she appeared to have abandoned the family's moderate Islam and become more radicalized during years they spent in Saudi Arabia.

Malik, 29, and her U.S.-born husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, stormed a gathering of civil servants in San Bernardino, California, on Wednesday, opening fire with assault rifles and killing 14 people.

The pair were killed two hours later in a shootout with police SWAT team members.

"There's a serious investigation ongoing into what she was doing in Pakistan and in Saudi," McCaul said on Fox News Sunday. "We think that she had a lot to do with the radicalization process and perhaps with Mr. Farook's radicalization from within in the United States."

In order to help fight terrorism, law abiding gun owners must be punished.

It only seems that way because most of the world is gentiles and Paul was sent to the gentiles.

Peter was sent to the jews.
If I'm not mistaken Jesus chose Peter as the first leader of the church.

Galatians 2:7-8New English Translation (NET Bible)

7 On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles)


Matthew 16:18New English Translation (NET Bible)

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

For the record everyone, Paul and Peter both taught the same thing.
Everything checks out scripturally in both the old and new testaments.

It only seems that way because most of the world is gentiles and Paul was sent to the gentiles.

Peter was sent to the jews.
If I'm not mistaken Jesus chose Peter as the first leader of the church.

Like a good liberal youve equated waging war against terrorism to terrorism itself. It's like a knee jerk reflex to automatically ***all over western values by equating them to terrorism.

Please tell me I don't have to explain the difference between bombing a weapons silo disguised as a school, and terrorism.

So, were dismissing mainland Europe?

If you're referring to Henry VIII, merely glancing through a tunneled Anglo-centric view, and insinuating there was a finite conclusion, I suggest you read up on Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots, Oliver Cromwell and the Stuart dynasty.

Ridiculous.

....
Can I just say here the misunderstanding in the word 'church' from scripture.
It is not a building, it is a gathering of 2 or more people who are following in the teaching and ways of Christ. And as a whole called the body of Christ/Christs bride in which have received the spiritual Kingdom of heaven.

Considering what is in the book wasn't canon until 600 years after either of them was around, is there no possibility it was sanitized? This speaks directly to your credibility in discussing the topic, because it's impossible not to see the hands of the organizers of the church in the books they chose to include it not include. It's even reasonable and pragmatic to exclude the teachings that stand apart of your goal is to unite the different sects.

all I have seen so far in the Bible checks out to be true via checking within the Bible.

Bill Warner writes, "There are as many as 225 verses of the Koran that are altered by later verses. This is called abrogation."

On this basis Muslims are required to wage jihad.

Uhhh...that sounds like "what the bible says is true cause it's written in the bible", wha?

Or the relatively recent period of "the troubles" in Northern Ireland.

It only seems that way because most of the world is gentiles and Paul was sent to the gentiles.

Old Dickie Mountbatten certainly got his. I'm sure there were some Indians and Burmese that were quite happy with the IRA. LOL!

Better steer this away from British Imperialism...

Is this supposed to be a reply to me? You didn't address what I said. You've got this weird habit of copy/pasting (sometimes without a source) to make your post look as if it had substance. Take a moment and engage rather than keep copy/pasting more stuff that are irrelevant to what's being discussed.

I mean I(we) get it, you're passionate about your religion, but this is a forum. Is your goal to discuss your beliefs and ideas, or to demonize Islam so that it doesn't compete with the only "one true religion"?

Funny source, and an imaginary claim.

"Abrogation" is an intricate scholarly topic, and it isn't thought to have happened to as many verses as 255 by any reputable scholar, and that's talking about abrogations in rulings only, which happened over the course of revelation for a variety of reasons (causing gradual change, for example).


I guess I've been slacking.

Go read the letter to Albaghdadi that I linked numerous times, it contains a section about jihad. It was signed by over a hundred different scholars of different schools of Fiqh. If that doesn't represent mainstream consensus and you'd rather listen to "Bill Warner", then that's your business.

Abrogation and Jihad

How does the theological debate over abrogation impact contemporary policy formulation? While not all terrorism is rooted in Islam, the religion is an enabler for many. It is wrong to assume that more extreme interpretations of religion are illegitimate. Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology. It is important to acknowledge that what university scholars believe, and what most Muslims—or more extreme Muslims—believe are two different things. For many Islamists and radical Muslims, abrogation is real and what the West calls terror is, indeed, just.

During the lifetime of Muhammad, the Islamic community passed through three stages. In the beginning from 610 until 622, God commanded restraint. As the Muslims relocated to Medina (623-26), God permitted Muslims only to fight in a defensive war. However, in the last six years of Muhammad's life (626-32), God permitted Muslims to fight an aggressive war first against polytheists,[52] and later against monotheists like the Jews of Khaybar.[53] Once Muhammad was given permission to kill in the name of God, he instigated battle.

Chapter 9 of the Qur'an, in English called "Ultimatum," is the most important concerning the issues of abrogation and jihad against unbelievers. It is the only chapter that does not begin "in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful."[54] Commentators agree that Muhammad received this revelation in 631, the year before his death, when he had returned to Mecca and was at his strongest.[55] Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari (810-70), compiler of one of the most authoritative collections of the hadith, said that "Ultimatum" was the last chapter revealed to Muhammad[56] although others suggest it might have been penultimate. Regardless, coming at or near the very end of Muhammad's life, "Ultimatum" trumps earlier revelations.

Because this chapter contains violent passages, it abrogates previous peaceful content. Muhsin Khan, the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari, says God revealed "Ultimatum" in order to discard restraint and to command Muslims to fight against all the pagans as well as against the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam or until they pay religious taxes. So, at first aggressive fighting was forbidden; it later became permissible (2:190) and subsequently obligatory (9:5).[57] This "verse of the sword" abrogated, canceled, and replaced 124 verses that called for tolerance, compassion, and peace.[58]

Suyuti said that everything in the Qur'an about forgiveness and peace is abrogated by verse 9:5, which orders Muslims to fight the unbelievers and to establish God's kingdom on earth.

Prior to receiving "Ultimatum," Muhammad had reached agreements with various Arab tribes. But when God gave Muhammad a revelation (2:190-2), Muhammad felt justified in breaking his cease-fire. For Isma'il bin Kathir (1301-73), a student of Ibn Taymiyya and an influential Qur'an interpreter in his own right, it is clear: As jihad involves death and the killing of men, God draws attention to the fact that disbelief, polytheism, and avoidance of God's path as shown by the Qur'an are worse than killing them.[59] This creates license for future generations of Muslims to kill non-Muslims solely on the basis of their refusal to accept Islam

Abdullah ibn Masood quotes the Prophet (Pbuh) as saying: “The best of people are my contemporaries, then the generation to follow, then those who follow them. After that there will be people among whom you find some whose testimony comes ahead of their oaths and whose oaths come ahead of their testimony.”

Jihad is used in 3 concepts as I understand it.

1. Doing god's work
2. The struggle against unbelievers (not necessarily violent)
3. The struggle within against doubts

Moderates don't seem to use the term in it's original context all that often, so it's taken on it's more violent meaning more that it is intended to.

Wow if this was the case we can throw away everything historic we know about the war and fighting of Mohammeds conquests in spreading Islam.