Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul. Show all posts
Monday, 13 November 2017
Karen Armstrong: Early Gospel Authors Did Not Believe Jesus Was God
Video also uploaded here
Paul and the Synoptics had never regarded Jesus as God; the very idea would have horrified Paul who, before his conversion, had been an exceptionally punctilious Pharisee. They all used the term ‘Son of God’ in the conventional Jewish sense: Jesus had been an ordinary human being commissioned by God with a special task. Even in his exalted state, there was, for Paul, always a clear distinction between Jesus kyrios Christos and God, his Father. The author of the Fourth Gospel , however, depicted Jesus as a cosmic being, God’s eternal ‘Word’ (logos) who had existed with God before the beginning of time. This high Christology seems to have separated these congregations from other Jewish Christian communities. [Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood, Religion and the History of Violence, The Bodley Head, 2014 p129]
Thursday, 28 September 2017
Sam Shamoun and David Wood Cursed by Paul of Tarsus!
Paul of Tarsus cursed all Trinitarians in Galatians 1 as Paul of Tarsus never knew about the Trinity doctrine and never preached or believed in this doctrine. Thus for Paul of Tarsus, the Trinitarians preach a different Gospel to him, meaning they are cursed according to Galatians 1.
Even if folks like Sam Shamoun and David Wood decide to give up the Trinity doctrine they will still be considered to be cursed by Paul of Tarsus as they are suspected of rejecting Penal Substitution. Here's what Brandon Hines writes about Michael Gungor in this regard:
By denying Penal Substitution, Gungor is rejecting the true Gospel and embracing another gospel, which is no gospel at all. What does the Bible say we are to do with those who bring another Gospel? Galatians 1:8 (ESV) tells us, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” [Brandon Hines]
For the Muslim, Paul of Tarsus has no authority whatsoever. Muslim don't care who he cursed. Can Christians say the same?
How Jay Smith, Nabeel Qureshi, Sam Shamoun and David Wood Contribute to the Apostasy of Christians
Geza Vermes on How Jesus Would Have Reacted to Trinitarian Christians
Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?
For Christians who say Allah is a Deceiver- a Message from James White
Oldest British Convert to Islam, Br Mohamed Keith-Kinglsey Cunliffe?
Faith Change: Islam rapidly grows as Christianity declines in UK
Slovakians converting to Islam
Faith Change: Islam rapidly grows as Christianity declines in UK
Slovakians converting to Islam
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Wednesday, 11 January 2017
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
DH Can you speak to the problem of anachronism and its effect on understanding Paul?
PF I’m a historian, and the most grave “original sin” for a historian is anachronism. What that means is that you lift something out of its historical context and put it in a different historical context, and so misinterpret it. If in addition we think of Paul as an orthodox Christian, we will only misinterpret him that much more. He’s living in a period where he’s not thinking in a Trinitarian manner. The idea of the Trinity hasn’t been conceived yet. His letters will have Jesus Christ in them; they will have God the Father in them; he will talk about the Spirit of God. Those are the textual origins that will be used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity, but Paul’s not thinking in a Trinitarian way.
People reading Paul assume that he’s hostile to Judaism because he’s the “inventor” of Christianity. In fact, he’s still imagining himself as a Jew and he’s presenting Christianity in continuity with Judaism. The fact that Paul is such a huge figure for Christianity makes it almost impossible for us not to interpret him anachronistically when we look at him, because it’s so important that his message speak immediately to modern Christianity. If we allow ourselves to see how much his message actually cohered with first-century Judaism, then we have to relinquish an immediate connection between him and us, between this ancient Jewish messianic movement and the modern church. [Source]
Oldest British Convert to Islam, Br Mohamed Keith-Kinglsey Cunliffe?
Faith Change: Islam rapidly grows as Christianity declines in UK
Slovakians converting to Islam
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Faith Change: Islam rapidly grows as Christianity declines in UK
Slovakians converting to Islam
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Sunday, 10 May 2015
Monday, 2 February 2015
Important Video for Pauline Christians
Dr Shabir Ally, in this 30 second video, mentions the early followers of Jesus (p) kept the Law while Paul and his followers broke the Law.
Did Paul Contradict Jesus? Dr Shabir Ally
False Prophecy by Paul 1 Thessalonians 4:17
Who wrote Hebrews?
Is the Gospel of John Reliable?
The Sicarii
More about the Paraclete
Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Sunday, 1 February 2015
False Prophecy by Paul 1 Thessalonians 4:17
Here's some material from Dr Shabir Ally and Bassam Zawadi in which they posit Paul made a false prophecy in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4.
What I'd like Christians to do is to ponder upon the points made by Dr Shabir Ally and Bassam Zawadi. At the end of the day, if Paul is making false prophecies then how can the average Christian deem him to be reliable?
Look into this and look into Islam. The Islamic view of Jesus (p) makes more sense than the Trinitarian view of Jesus p.
Dr Shabir Ally on the false prophecy attribute to Paul in Thessalonians 4:17
Bassam Zawadi's comments on 1 Thessalonians 4 and the claim of false prophecy is taken from here but is reproduced in full below:
Paul made a false prophecy about the coming of Jesus during his lifetime...
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.
Lets look at some of the commentaries regarding this passage...
"Prevent" means "having an advantage over." Those who live until the Lord comes won't have any advantage over those who died earlier.
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1139502792-6755.html
a. Paul emphasized the soon return of Jesus, and the Thessalonians believed it earnestly; this was part of the reason that they were the kind of church that Paul would compliment so highly. But after he had left, they wondered about those Christians who died before Jesus' return - did they miss out on that great event? Would they miss the victory and blessing of Jesus' coming?
b. The Thessalonians were afraid that the dead in Christ would miss out, but Paul assures them that those gone on before them won't feel cheated at not being on earth when Jesus comes back to this earth, because the dead in Christ will gain first benefit
a. Those alive and remaining until this coming of Jesus are caught up to meet Jesus in the air, together with the dead in Jesus who have already risen
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1139503168-6235.html
The "we" means whichever of us are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord.
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1139503752-1625.html
Christians may tend to argue back and quote...
Matthew 24:42
"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.
to show that Christians never knew about when Jesus was coming and therefore should always be expecting it. However, when we look at the way Paul is talking about the coming of Jesus we see that he is confident and sure that Jesus would be coming during his lifetime. He didn't say 'IF Jesus comes now then...". He was talking confidently and emphasized that Jesus was coming for sure during his lifetime in that passage. Obviously he was wrong. Paul wrote something wrong and wrote a failed prophecy. According to Christians all scripture is inspired (2Timothy 3:16). How could the Holy Spirit who was inspiring Paul, inspire Paul to write a false prophecy like that?
Who wrote Hebrews?
Is the Gospel of John Reliable?
The Sicarii
More about the Paraclete
Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Thursday, 20 March 2014
Paul Changed the Bible? Rabbi Skobac on Paul's misquote of Isaiah 59:20
Rabbi Michael Skobac zones in on Paul's twisting of Isaiah 59:20. This is astounding. Paul appears to have literally changed the words in Isaiah 59:20 in a radical fashion.
“The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” [Isaiah 59:20]
Yet Paul in Romans presents the above verse radically different:
and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. [Romans 11:26 NIV]
Paul's (MIS) use of Isaiah 59:20
Clarke's commentary on the Bible
Unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob "And shall turn away iniquity from Jacob" - So the Septuagint and St. Paul, Romans 11:26, reading instead of לשבי leshabey and ביעקב beyaacob, והשיב veheshib and מיעקב meyaacob. The Syriac likewise reads והשיב veheshib; and the Chaldee, to the same sense, ולהשיב ulehashib. Our translators have expressed the sense of the present reading of the Hebrew text: "And unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/59-20.htm
Invitation to Islam
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
“The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” [Isaiah 59:20]
Yet Paul in Romans presents the above verse radically different:
and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. [Romans 11:26 NIV]
Paul's (MIS) use of Isaiah 59:20
Clarke's commentary on the Bible
Unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob "And shall turn away iniquity from Jacob" - So the Septuagint and St. Paul, Romans 11:26, reading instead of לשבי leshabey and ביעקב beyaacob, והשיב veheshib and מיעקב meyaacob. The Syriac likewise reads והשיב veheshib; and the Chaldee, to the same sense, ולהשיב ulehashib. Our translators have expressed the sense of the present reading of the Hebrew text: "And unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/59-20.htm
Invitation to Islam
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email:
yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Tags: zakir naik, iran, brother Imran, Pakistan,
jews4judaism, rabbi boteach, rabbi refutes paul, Saudi Arabia, uae, paul of tarsus, answering muslims blog, answering islam site, nadir ahmed,
waqar akbar cheema, sam shamoun, nabeel, david wood, exposed, muslim debate,
shabir ally, paul Williams, who changed the bible, james white, dave hunt catholic, debates, ben witherington, ergun caner, nabeel qureshi, paul debate,
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Bishop: St Paul Was Gay
A retired bishop (John Shelby Spong) who believes Paul was a repressed homosexual. Liberalism is splitting the church and seems to be winning.
Bishop Believes Paul of Tarsus was a Repressed Homosexual
Who is Bishop John Shelby Spong?
John Shelby "Jack" Spong (born June 16, 1931) is a retired American bishop of the Episcopal Church. He was formerly the Bishop of Newark (based in Newark, New Jersey). He is a liberal Christian theologian, religion commentator and author. He calls for a fundamental rethinking of Christian belief away from theism and from traditional doctrines. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spong#cite_note-ABC1-0]
Uncomfortable Conservative Wriggling at Gay Theory
Conservative Christian, James White, looks visibly uncomfortable whilst Bishop John Shelby Spong presents his personal views on Paul. Speaking of Christians infuriating Muslims by distorting the Bible to reflect their liberal views; Christians have began to reject the clear hand-chopping ruling within Deuteronomy by absurdly using personal reinterpretation to interpret it as meaning chopping off pubic hair rather than the hand!
Was Paul gay? No.
There is no evidence of Paul being homosexual (gay). The bishop, John Shelby Spong, simply churns out his personal interpretations of the Bible and comes to the liberal belief that Paul was a homosexual. His views are unfounded and simply reflect his fanciful mind. We must remember this is simply he opinion of the bishop.
Perhaps the bigoted Christians who busy themselves in propagandizing against Muslims and Islam would like to spend time in refuting the liberal falsehoods emanating from churches…or do they not mind as long as these falsehoods catch fish for the church?
Tough questions Christian apologists do not answer
New Testament Studies for Christians and Muslims
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Bishop Believes Paul of Tarsus was a Repressed Homosexual
Who is Bishop John Shelby Spong?
John Shelby "Jack" Spong (born June 16, 1931) is a retired American bishop of the Episcopal Church. He was formerly the Bishop of Newark (based in Newark, New Jersey). He is a liberal Christian theologian, religion commentator and author. He calls for a fundamental rethinking of Christian belief away from theism and from traditional doctrines. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Spong#cite_note-ABC1-0]
Uncomfortable Conservative Wriggling at Gay Theory
Conservative Christian, James White, looks visibly uncomfortable whilst Bishop John Shelby Spong presents his personal views on Paul. Speaking of Christians infuriating Muslims by distorting the Bible to reflect their liberal views; Christians have began to reject the clear hand-chopping ruling within Deuteronomy by absurdly using personal reinterpretation to interpret it as meaning chopping off pubic hair rather than the hand!
Was Paul gay? No.
There is no evidence of Paul being homosexual (gay). The bishop, John Shelby Spong, simply churns out his personal interpretations of the Bible and comes to the liberal belief that Paul was a homosexual. His views are unfounded and simply reflect his fanciful mind. We must remember this is simply he opinion of the bishop.
Perhaps the bigoted Christians who busy themselves in propagandizing against Muslims and Islam would like to spend time in refuting the liberal falsehoods emanating from churches…or do they not mind as long as these falsehoods catch fish for the church?
Tough questions Christian apologists do not answer
New Testament Studies for Christians and Muslims
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Sunday, 3 July 2011
Christian Wives Cannot Refuse Sexual Relations with their Husbands – Bible
Christian Hypocrisy: Muslim Marital Ways
Sadly, some myopic and Islamophobic Christians have been missing the point concerning Islam’s encouragement of both husband and wife to fulfil each other’s rights sexually. Christian Islamophobes who lack understanding often cite the following Hadith in their attempts to point score against Muslims:
It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘If a woman spends the night having forsaken her husband’s bed, the angels will curse her until she goes back.’”(narrated by al-Bukhaari, al-Nikaah, 4795)
These Christians often disregard the following points:
1. The Bible teaches the SAME thing; Christian women are not allowed to refuse their husands sexually (and vice versa) plus must obey their husbands with regards to what they wear etc..
2. Sexual relations are the natural rights of the husband and wife, thus the spouse denying their partner (husband/wife) increases the risk that the husband/wife will seek to satisfy their desires outside of marriage which is a huge sin within Islam and Christianity.
3. Sexual union is part of husband-wife relations and builds intimacy and love between the spouses.
The Bible teaches Christian women cannot refuse sex with their Christian husbands?
Now, those familiar with the Bible may cite the most obvious Bible verse, which instructs the wife to obey the husband in every command:
Ephesians 5:24-33
New Living Translation (NLT)
As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.
However, this is not the verse I had in mind, though the verse could be deemed more than sufficient to illustrate the point but the following passage in Corinthians teaches us that Christian women (and men) should not refuse their spouses sexual intimacy – very much in the same way as the Islamic teachings above:
1 Corinthians 7:2-5
New Living Translation (NLT)
2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
3 The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. 4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.
5 Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
*Note, the NIV uses the word ‘marital’ instead of ‘sexual’ in verse three. The two words amount to the same meaning. However, the CEB agrees with the word ‘sexual’.
Learned Christians teach Christian women cannot say no to their husbands’ sexual advances (and vice versa):
"Sex when desired" by either partner: 1 Cor 7:3-4.
If your husband wants sex, it is a sin to refuse him. If your wife wants sex, it is a sin to refuse her. Bible sex is always consensual... your spouse asks, and you always say yes. Many a marriage can be saved by implementing this one rule alone. When you get married, you lose control of your body to your spouse. Studies have shown that about an equal amount of married women want more sex than their husbands, as married men who want more sex than their wives desire. It would be nice to match men and women up as marriage partners based upon their sex drive it would be great. But unfortunately this is often not the case. One partner wants sex more often than the other. In these situations, the partner that doesn’t desire sex must immediately consent to their spouse. Scripture is very clear about this although most Christians have missed this. [http://www.bible.ca/marriage/sex-on-demand.htm]
The Christians understand this passage to even mean if the husband (or wife) wants sex more often than their respective spouse then the spouse MUST IMMEDIATELY CONSENT.
Inconsistent and ignorant Christians
May I ask, why is it that so many Christians are criticisng Islam for something that is totally BIBLICAL and supported by the author of Corinthians (largely agreed to be St Paul)? The answer my friends, is that of ignorance of the Bible and inconsistency.
Dress code?
A bonus nugget – no more short skirts, shorts, tight jeans, tight tops, transparent clothing, low cut tops etc – if the Christian husband puts his foot down!
Bible.ca write:
1 Cor 7:3-4 also means that your spouse has control over you the way you dress, your hair cut and the way you physically look.
Christian men, speak up!
Oh Christian wives, could you speak up against those, I believe they call them ‘suspenders’ or 'braces', two straps some American Christian men wear to hold their trousers up. Get them to wear belts. Belts look smarter. :)
And PLEASE start wearing the Hijab, we have clearly shown it to be biblical. If your husbands complain, tell them its your right to wear the clothing of Mary (p).
Christians ignore Paul AGAIN
This Bible teaching of not refusing sex with your spouse unless mutually agreed seems to be disliked by some Christians. I’m not sure why. Paul is presenting a perfectly reasonable teaching as it helps keep Christian men and women away from temptations of adultery, pornography and other sexual deviances. Muslims have a similar teaching, looks like Paul is agreeing with Islam again as we previously taught Paul supported the hijab to the extent that he thought hijab-less Christian women were temptations for angels (and most likely other men too)!
Why are so many modern day Christians ignoring Paul’s conservative teachings which are precautions against adultery and fornication. Surely if America followed these two practical and basic teachings of Paul we would have less adultery and fornication in Western societies (as well as Eastern societies as so many within the East imitate and adopt American culture).
The question still stands, why?
Hijab and the Bible
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Sadly, some myopic and Islamophobic Christians have been missing the point concerning Islam’s encouragement of both husband and wife to fulfil each other’s rights sexually. Christian Islamophobes who lack understanding often cite the following Hadith in their attempts to point score against Muslims:
It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘If a woman spends the night having forsaken her husband’s bed, the angels will curse her until she goes back.’”(narrated by al-Bukhaari, al-Nikaah, 4795)
These Christians often disregard the following points:
1. The Bible teaches the SAME thing; Christian women are not allowed to refuse their husands sexually (and vice versa) plus must obey their husbands with regards to what they wear etc..
2. Sexual relations are the natural rights of the husband and wife, thus the spouse denying their partner (husband/wife) increases the risk that the husband/wife will seek to satisfy their desires outside of marriage which is a huge sin within Islam and Christianity.
3. Sexual union is part of husband-wife relations and builds intimacy and love between the spouses.
The Bible teaches Christian women cannot refuse sex with their Christian husbands?
Now, those familiar with the Bible may cite the most obvious Bible verse, which instructs the wife to obey the husband in every command:
Ephesians 5:24-33
New Living Translation (NLT)
As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.
However, this is not the verse I had in mind, though the verse could be deemed more than sufficient to illustrate the point but the following passage in Corinthians teaches us that Christian women (and men) should not refuse their spouses sexual intimacy – very much in the same way as the Islamic teachings above:
1 Corinthians 7:2-5
New Living Translation (NLT)
2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
3 The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. 4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.
5 Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
*Note, the NIV uses the word ‘marital’ instead of ‘sexual’ in verse three. The two words amount to the same meaning. However, the CEB agrees with the word ‘sexual’.
Learned Christians teach Christian women cannot say no to their husbands’ sexual advances (and vice versa):
"Sex when desired" by either partner: 1 Cor 7:3-4.
If your husband wants sex, it is a sin to refuse him. If your wife wants sex, it is a sin to refuse her. Bible sex is always consensual... your spouse asks, and you always say yes. Many a marriage can be saved by implementing this one rule alone. When you get married, you lose control of your body to your spouse. Studies have shown that about an equal amount of married women want more sex than their husbands, as married men who want more sex than their wives desire. It would be nice to match men and women up as marriage partners based upon their sex drive it would be great. But unfortunately this is often not the case. One partner wants sex more often than the other. In these situations, the partner that doesn’t desire sex must immediately consent to their spouse. Scripture is very clear about this although most Christians have missed this. [http://www.bible.ca/marriage/sex-on-demand.htm]
The Christians understand this passage to even mean if the husband (or wife) wants sex more often than their respective spouse then the spouse MUST IMMEDIATELY CONSENT.
Inconsistent and ignorant Christians
May I ask, why is it that so many Christians are criticisng Islam for something that is totally BIBLICAL and supported by the author of Corinthians (largely agreed to be St Paul)? The answer my friends, is that of ignorance of the Bible and inconsistency.
 |
| Paul's advice ignored |
A bonus nugget – no more short skirts, shorts, tight jeans, tight tops, transparent clothing, low cut tops etc – if the Christian husband puts his foot down!
Bible.ca write:
1 Cor 7:3-4 also means that your spouse has control over you the way you dress, your hair cut and the way you physically look.
Christian men, speak up!
Oh Christian wives, could you speak up against those, I believe they call them ‘suspenders’ or 'braces', two straps some American Christian men wear to hold their trousers up. Get them to wear belts. Belts look smarter. :)
And PLEASE start wearing the Hijab, we have clearly shown it to be biblical. If your husbands complain, tell them its your right to wear the clothing of Mary (p).
Christians ignore Paul AGAIN
This Bible teaching of not refusing sex with your spouse unless mutually agreed seems to be disliked by some Christians. I’m not sure why. Paul is presenting a perfectly reasonable teaching as it helps keep Christian men and women away from temptations of adultery, pornography and other sexual deviances. Muslims have a similar teaching, looks like Paul is agreeing with Islam again as we previously taught Paul supported the hijab to the extent that he thought hijab-less Christian women were temptations for angels (and most likely other men too)!
Why are so many modern day Christians ignoring Paul’s conservative teachings which are precautions against adultery and fornication. Surely if America followed these two practical and basic teachings of Paul we would have less adultery and fornication in Western societies (as well as Eastern societies as so many within the East imitate and adopt American culture).
The question still stands, why?
Hijab and the Bible
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Sunday, 26 June 2011
Christian Women Without Hijab are Temptresses to Angels - Paul (?)
 |
| Dress code for Christian females |
We all know Paul was an advocate of the Hijab (head covering) to the extent of essentially forcing Christian women to wear the Hijab by offering the ultimatum of chopping off their locks (hair) or wearing the Hijab, but we are not sure why Paul was so in favour of the Hijab.
The Jesus scholar,Geza Vermes, offers some insight concerning our difficulty and his theorizing is interesting to say the least:
The idea of potential sexual rapport between angels and women continued to float in the air even as late as in the New Testament times. Indeed, when St Paul forbade the female members of the church of Corinth to attend Christian assemblies with the head uncovered, he justified this prohibition by his belief that the sight of their hair might lead astray some passing-by sons of heaven: 'That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels', Paul insisted (1 Cor 11:10). [1]
Christian men tempted by Christian women without hijab?
If Vermes' view concerning Pauls' reasoning is correct one wonders as to the extent early Christians thought hijab-less women as a temptation to sin. After all, if they thought angels could not resist unveiled Christian women then what about the lay Christians? So why in the world are they freely mixing with uncovered Christian women at churches every Sunday? Not only that, what about day to day activities. I cannot ever recall seeing a lay Christian woman in hijab yet I have lived in the Christian West all my life!
Christians need to stop presenting Christianity as secualrism with a belief in a trinity and blood sacrifice. It's not.
Paul ignored by Christian women...
Paul's precautions against sexual sin (the hijab) have largely been ignored by most Christian women.
We would very much encourage Christian women to ignore Paul on his mistakes but act upon the teachings which have a ring of truth and sense to them. The hijab is something Mary wore and something which all women should strive for.
Of course, we as Muslims are not going to accept the idea that angels are tempted to sexual sin. Muslims believe angels do not disobey God.
Christian men...
Why are Christian men so lax in encouraging the Hijab? For some reason, Christians follow Paul theologically to the letter yet ignore him practically as in this case. I'd like to see Christians ignore Paul theologically and adopt Paul's teaching of hijab...
You don't have to believe Paul's alleged reasoning for the hijab, just start handing out hijabs to women who claim to love Jesus (p).
PS You can get all your hijabs from an Islamic centre near you, please pick some literature up on the way out. Thanks. May God bless you.
Invitation to Islam
Do you want a relationship with God? The God who created Jesus and whom was worshipped by Jesus? If yes, please come to Islam today.
[1] The Nativity, Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 2006, p53
FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@yahoo.com
Become a Muslim if you love Jesus (p)
Sexism: Reason to change the Bible
Discover Islam
New Testament Discussed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)