Christian/Muslim ThreadsDebunking Abdurrahman: Pauls corruption of Jesus ChristAbdurrahman wrote: Kai replies: Actually, there was a thriving Jewish community in Damascus at this time, and archaeology certainly reveals that synagogues were present at the time of Paul; such as the 2000 year old Jewish synagogue in Jobar, two miles from the main city. The rulers in Damascus were the Arabic Nabataeans, who ruled from 85 BC to 63 AD. There was enmity between them and king Herod over matters related to royal affairs, but not necessarily the Jews, at least at this point. Josephus in his historical writings refers to a massacre of the Jews in the city, on a later occasion. However, archaeology reveals that synagogues were present, and if you consider synagogues to be of extra ordinary significance, say Jews had to be cautious, then think again, you simply needed ten males to start a synagogue. Otherwise Paul simply brought a letter from the religious leaders in Jerusalem for the synagogues in Damascus, to obtain permission to start local arrests of those who had converted to the Christian faith. Thus Paul did not possess the local mandate to complete his wish, until the Jewish synagogue had obtained the admission from the local authorities; at least that is how things were done in those days. Abdurrahman wrote: Kai replies: Brother, You certainly seem to know nothing about history. Of course the occupants were Romans, accepted. However the entire Roman world was hellenized before the Roman Pax Romana; virtually every country in the Roman empire, including Arabia followed Greek culture. Secondly, that Roman’s were occupators does not indicate that every non-Roman you met on the street would be Roman. In fact, a far greater proportion of the Roman empire consisted of Greeks, which is the very reason why you had Roman colonies such as Philippi in a non-Roman country. Thirdly, if you look at the context you will notice that these particular Greeks, were in fact Hellenized Jews or Greek converts to Judaims, not Roman soldiers. Abdurrahman wrote: Kai replies: Exactly, what is your point here bro? Being a disciple is an individual who follows Jesus. The command of Jesus was to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28: 18-20). Secondly, the title Christian simply referred to one who followed Christ. In some places Christians were known as those who belonged to ‘the Way’ (Acts 9: 2); in other words, Christianity was seen for what it is, a lifestyle. Being Christian simply implied the same idea, those who follow Christ. Thirdly, we are never commanded anywhere in the Bible to take upon us a specific title, in fact however, the name Christian, may indeed be the most accurate. Fourthly, you seem to imply that Paul proposed this new title; could you please provide me with the Scriptural or historical evidence for this claim. If you read Acts 11: 26 again you may notice that it says:
We simply have no real clue about how the title originated, however, that the disciples were called Christians could imply that the title was proposed by those who were not Christians. And further, do you see the link, even within the same line: disciples-Christians? Abdurrahman wrote: Kai replies: Again this is your own statement, based on your own speculation, not on the text; would you please provide the actual Scriptural evidence. Abdurrahman wrote: Kai replies: It’s a fact that Jesus in his earthly ministry focused on the Jewish nation, however, this certainly was never intended to exclude the Gentiles. In Matthew 10: 18 Jesus speaks about a time when the disciples will proclaim the message to the Gentiles and even to Gentile kings, by the help of the Holy Spirit. In Luke 2: 32, while Jesus is still an infant, the prophet Simon reveals that Jesus is the salvation promised for the entire global community, both Jew and Gentile alike. The Commission, when Jesus Christ gives the command and mandate to make disciples of all nations also verifies that Christ indeed came for the entire world (Matthew 28: 18-20) This is further elaborated on by His words in John 10: 14-16: Does that answer your question bro? Abdurrahman wrote: Kai replies: Wrong again bro: I don’t see any change of name here, the passage simply reveals that Saul was known also as Paul. Secondly, are you stating that every person who considers e.g. the Muslim faith and changes his name has an identity problem, and if he has, how can you judge Paul, well maybe, at least according to your own assessment. Abdurrahman wrote: Kai replies: What planet are you living on bro?????????????????????? If you were a Jew by biological origin and religion, but so happened to be born with a Roman citizenship, then you are a Jew, perhaps even a Pharisee, with a Roman citizenship. Are you telling me that every Jew living in USA is confused about his identity, or every Pakistani Muslim living in UK is mentally retarded? Frankly I think you need to apologize for such a silly statement. Abdurrahman wrote:
Kai replies: Paul, insane? Really? Did you ever read the passage? Probably not, Acts 27: 24 is the wrong passage! Acts 26: 24 records Festus’ interruption while Paul is proclaiming the Christian message: Drawing from the context nothing reveals that Paul was actually considered insane, Festus simply reacted by a message, which demanded his change of religion and conversion to the Christian faith. Face the fact bro, Paul never permitted rape of female war captives or rape of female slaves, or marriage with nine year old girls; now that can be categorized insanity. Abdurrahman wrote:
Kai replies: Did you ever consider the time gap between Acts 18 and Acts 28? Abdurrahman wrote: Kai replies: Again bro, may I encourage you to read the Christian Scripture before you bring up such statements. It’s a fact that Paul in the book of Romans, Galatians and Corinthians does not encourage Gentile Christians to start circumcising. However, again (and we can have a further debate on this if you like), you need to look at the context. Some Hebrew converts had spread the idea that circumcision was a necessity for salvation (Acts 15: 1-2); this is the very reason why Paul opposes circumcision at this point. If you don’t mind you can read through the epistle to the Galatians and see that this is the issue which Paul is dealing with. Otherwise, the New Testament has no objection to circumcision, it’s a free choice; Jewish Christian practice it, fine, Gentiles are under no such obligation. As for Timothy, he was a half Jew, and being able to communicate to Jews, you had to be circumcised, otherwise being excepted was impossible. His circumcision was merely a sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel, not a religious obligation. As I said circumcision means nothing, it’s left to the individual or the culture to decide; it becomes an issue only if you add it as an extra element to reach salvation. Abdurrahman wrote:
Kai replies: The issue is quite similar here, but in this case we call it contextualization; that is basically communicating the Gospel in language understandable to the recipient of the message. The use of the ‘alter to an unknown god’, fitted perfectly, since the habitants of Athens had no knowledge about Jahveh. Abdurrahman wrote: Kai replies: Again may I suggest that you read the context; I doubt you have even read the passages you are referring to. Nothing in the passage degrades the Law of Moses; Paul admired and honoured the law, in the same way as I value it, in the same way as any Muslim values the Koran. Paul simply verifies that a law cannot save an individual from hellfire, as everyone has broken the law in the first place. In other words it is not the law that saves, it is the law that guides. As for salvation, it is faith in Jesus that saves, or more correctly formulated, Jesus that saves but in faith that we receives the salvation. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame